flashrom January 2018

flashrom@flashrom.org

26 participants
45 discussions

GPG signature on flashrom release
by Archange 18 Jan '18

18 Jan '18

Hi, It seems that flashrom provides GPG sigs for the tarball, e.g. http://download.flashrom.org/releases/flashrom-1.0.tar.bz2.asc, which is nice. However, I seems I can’t find the key use to sign this on usual keyservers. Could you tell me where it is available? Regards, Bruno

2 1

[Lenovo G505S] KB9012 EC controller patches for the latest flashrom
by Mike Banon 15 Jan '18

15 Jan '18

Hi Nico and Paul, and Lenovo G505S owners/developers, I have ported the patches by Paul Kocialkowski to the latest flashrom sources of master branch (earlier there were incompatibilities) -- making it possible to flash KB9012 EC controller [found in Lenovo G505S AMD coreboot-supported laptop (no AMD PSP backdoor!)] with the latest flashrom. Probed/read/erased/flashed/verified a few times, looks like its working perfectly :) Also, thanks to [v4,5/6] patch, now KB9012 is "hidden" and will never be probed for, unless explicitly specified by its chip name: -c "KB9012 (EDI)" or --chip "KB9012 (EDI)" . That should help to avoid the problems with other chips [v4,5/6] Add the hidden-from-probing chips category and make KB9012 hidden There are some chips like ENE KB9012, probing for which could cause the other chips to misbehave. Therefore, such chips should be "hidden" - not probed for unless the user wants This commit introduces a new field to the "flashchip" structure: int hidden; Now it is possible to "hide" any chip by adding this line .hidden = 1, to the "struct flashchip flashchips[]" structure of a chip, like .write = edi_chip_write, .read = edi_chip_read, .voltage = {2700, 3600}, .hidden = 1, }, flashrom will probe for a chip only if one of these conditions is true: 1) no chip has been specified AND this chip is not "hidden" 2) this chip has been specified by -c | --chip <chipname> All the patches could be reviewed by these links below, and it is possible to merge them sequentially: [v4,1/6] --> [v4,2/6] --> [v4,3/6] --> [v4,4/6] --> [v4,5/6] --> [v4,6/6] https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/flashrom/+/23258 [v4,1/6] Add support for selecting the erased bit value with a flag https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/flashrom/+/23259 [v4,2/6] ENE Embedded Debug Interface EDI and ENE KB9012 EC flashing support https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/flashrom/+/23260 [v4,3/6] ENE EDI - add dummy read to ensure proper detection of ENE chips https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/flashrom/+/23261 [v4,4/6] ENE EDI - print debug info like others while probing for ENE chips https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/flashrom/+/23262 [v4,5/6] Add the hidden-from-probing chips category and make KB9012 hidden https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/flashrom/+/23263 [v4,6/6] Add support for reading the current flash contents from a file Cheers, Mike On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Paul Kocialkowski <contact(a)paulk.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > Le mercredi 03 janvier 2018 à 15:34 +0300, Ivan Ivanov a écrit : >> Please tell - are there any real reasons why the Paul Kocialkowski's >> KB9012 support patches >> still cannot be merged? It is very discouraging - after 2 years of >> waiting to not see them at 1.0 >> Is there any way to get these patches merged, and maybe re-tag the >> flashrom 1.0 release ? > > We have been discussing about the future of these patches and they > cannot be accepted as-is today. Mostly, Nico was worried that issuing > SPI commands for the EDI protocol might cause some chips to misbehave if > these commands have another signification. I think this is a valid > concern. > > We agreed that one way to solve this would be to create groups for > probing, e.g. one with jedec-compliant chips (default) and one for ene > chips, so that only one group is probbed at the same time. > > I did not have the time to implement this idea yet, so it will block > kb9012 inclusion for now. If you'd like to go ahead and implement this > feature, I'd be happy to review your patches! > > Cheers, > > Paul > >> 2017-12-30 23:49 GMT+03:00 Ivan Ivanov <qmastery16(a)gmail.com>: >> > Hi Nico, please could you also merge the KB9012 patches by Paul >> > Kocialkowski : >> > >> > https://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/4412/ >> > https://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/4413/ >> > https://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/4414/ >> > >> > It is ridiculous how these patches are still not merged , after >> > almost >> > 2 years... :P >> > These patches are adding the support for KB9012 reading / writing, >> > the only open source flashing solution for these embedded >> > controllers >> > >> > Merging these patches could accelerate the development of Origami EC >> > libre firmware, >> > please do it >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Ivan Ivanov > -- > Paul Kocialkowski, developer of free digital technology and hardware > support > > Website: https://www.paulk.fr/ > Coding blog: https://code.paulk.fr/ > Git repositories: https://git.paulk.fr/ https://git.code.paulk.fr/ > _______________________________________________ > flashrom mailing list > flashrom(a)flashrom.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom > >

1 0

LE25FU406C Chip tested -> OK
by The_Raven Raven 12 Jan '18

12 Jan '18

Hi I have tested Chip "LE25FU406C" (found on a HDD). Chip works fine. Test Steps: - Chip Erased - Written Data1 - Written Data2 Data generated with "dd" from "/dev/urandom". Greets

1 0

FAILED: GF8200A
by Steve Sanbeg 12 Jan '18

12 Jan '18

I tried just upgrading the bios on my GF8200A with one downloaded from http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_DOWNLOAD.aspx?DetailID=873… And got the following error: ---- steve@ultra ~/Downloads/bios $ sudo flashrom -p internal -w 78NA113.ROM flashrom v0.9.9-rc1-r1942 on Linux 4.10.0-38-generic (x86_64) flashrom is free software, get the source code at https://flashrom.org Calibrating delay loop... OK. Found chipset "NVIDIA MCP78S". Enabling flash write... OK. Found Winbond flash chip "W25X80" (1024 kB, SPI) mapped at physical address 0x00000000fff00000. Reading old flash chip contents... done. Erasing and writing flash chip... Erase/write done. Verifying flash... FAILED at 0x00003f00! Expected=0xa1, Found=0xff, failed byte count from 0x00000000-0x000fffff: 0x5ec Your flash chip is in an unknown state. Get help on IRC at chat.freenode.net (channel #flashrom) or mail flashrom(a)flashrom.org with the subject "FAILED: <your board name>"! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DO NOT REBOOT OR POWEROFF! --- I got a similar error trying to reload a backup I'd just made with flashrom -r. I then found another thread that mentioned to retry both the update & restore with the -VVV and -o options, so I retried twice, then retried the backup, but both also failed.

1 0

Misleading successful message if you do not specify option --image
by R. Diez 11 Jan '18

11 Jan '18

Hi all: The behaviour of option --image has changed between versions 0.9.9 and 1.0.0. In the past, I wasn't specifying any --image, and flashrom just flashed the one and only that I had defined in my layout file. Now, flashrom just states that the chip content is identical, which is not the case. This is the output: --------8<--------8<--------8<-------- flashrom v1.0 on Windows 6.1 (x86) flashrom is free software, get the source code at https://flashrom.org Calibrating delay loop... OK. Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E" (8192 kB, SPI) on ft2232_spi. Reading old flash chip contents... done. Erasing and writing flash chip... Warning: Chip content is identical to the requested image. Erase/write done. --------8<--------8<--------8<-------- That is misleading. If the newer flashrom does not default to any image (or maybe to all images?), and the user specifies a layout file but not --image arguments, it should then fail with "no layout image specified" or a similar error message. Best regards, rdiez

2 3

Re: [flashrom] how to install
by Nico Huber 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

Hi, On 09.01.2018 17:19, Kenzho anandiya yudistiro wrote: > hi > > how to install flashrom on openwrt/lede? the packages its already on > openwrt/lede but it not working when I install it. you have to be much more specific. What command did you try? What error message did it return? Also, what does your setup look like, do you want to use a SPI interface of the board that runs LEDE or an external, e.g. USB, programmer? Nico

1 0

how to install
by Kenzho anandiya yudistiro 09 Jan '18

09 Jan '18

hi how to install flashrom on openwrt/lede? the packages its already on openwrt/lede but it not working when I install it. thank you for help

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Can you help me?
by Nico Huber 05 Jan '18

05 Jan '18

Hi, On 01.01.2018 22:42, Kārlis Magone wrote: > ... > Uh oh. Erase/write failed. Checking if anything has changed. > Reading current flash chip contents... done. > Good, writing to the flash chip apparently didn't do anything. > This means we have to add special support for your board, programmer or flash > chip. Please report this on IRC at chat.freenode.net (channel #flashrom) or > mail flashrom(a)flashrom.org, thanks! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You may now reboot or simply leave the machine running. > ipj-System-Product-Name ~ # > > > The reason, why i am traying to update BIOS is that Linux before > installing said that i have pnpBios Fault. So i also cant to install > other OSes like Windows. So I have a problem. you should first try to find and use flashing tools provided by your mainboard vendor. The error you've seen from flashrom is most common when there is some kind of write protection implemented on your board (sometimes it's a physical jumper or switch, sometimes it's controlled by a GPIO of the southbridge or super-i/o chip). If you can't use your board vendor's tools, please tell what board you have exactly and send a full log taken with: flashrom -p internal -o logfile.txt Nico

1 0

Trouble cross-compiling for Windows
by R. Diez 05 Jan '18

05 Jan '18

Hi all: First of all, many thanks for flashrom. I found cross-compiling for Windows on my Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS unnecessarily difficult. I am following the instructions on this page: https://flashrom.org/Windows These are the points I would like to raise: 1) Although that web page is a Wiki, I guess that only the flashrom team can modify the pages, right? That is the reason why I haven't directly contributed to that page yet. 2) The build instructions should mention that detailed error messages go to file build_details.txt . The error messages written to stdout during the configuration phase (for example, when looking for the libusb header file) are very generic and do not provide enough information. 3) Option "-Werror" ("cc1: warnings being treated as errors") should not really be enabled for end-users like me. This way, you are forced to fix every little warning, and warnings vary with GCC versions. In fact, there is already a warning about such a scenario in the README file: ----8<----8<---- Compiler quirks: If you are using clang and if you want to enable only one driver, you may hit an overzealous compiler warning from clang. Compile with "make WARNERROR=no" to force it to continue and enjoy. ----8<----8<---- But I hear your grumble. 8-) Maybe somebody with more public exposure will convince you: https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2009/02/future-proof-your-code-dont-use-werror/ In the case of flashrom, this all translates to setting WARNERROR=no as the default, and WARNERROR=yes when building on your build server. 4) Symbol __MINGW_PRINTF_FORMAT was not defined on my system. Apparently, mingw does not always define it. There is advise on the Internet about #ifdef'ing its usage, but I did not quite understand it all. 5) I saw the following warnings: ich_descriptors.c: In function 'prettyprint_ich_descriptor_content': ich_descriptors.c:142: warning: format '%5zd' expects type 'signed size_t', but argument 3 has type 'ssize_t' ich_descriptors.c:148: warning: format '%5zd' expects type 'signed size_t', but argument 3 has type 'ssize_t' I tried to fix them quickly, but it turns out that the simple cast (signed size_t) is not valid in C. I am not sure what the best fix for this issue is. 6) Please mention how to generate the HTML man page in the build instructions. You do not normally want to build and install as root, so the HTML page is the most convenient way to look at the manpage for the version you are building. You need to specify both "all" and "flashrom.8.html" as targets in order to build the normal binary plus the HTML manpage. 7) Specifying "CONFIG_FT2232_SPI=yes" does not break the build if the FTDI driver is not found (if ftdi.h is not there). That is a bit lame, as you only realise later on when trying to use the executable that your programmer is not there. However, if you do not turn off these two devices: CONFIG_CH341A_SPI=no CONFIG_DEDIPROG=no And you do not have the necessary files for libusb-1.0, then the build does break: Checking for libusb-1.0 headers... found. Checking if libusb-1.0 is usable... no. The following features require libusb-1.0: CONFIG_CH341A_SPI. Please install libusb-1.0 or disable all features mentioned above by specifying make CONFIG_ENABLE_LIBUSB1_PROGRAMMERS=no See README for more information. 8) I could not find any documentation for the configuration flags (like CONFIG_FT2232_SPI=yes/no). And reading the makefile is not easy. Please copy me on any answers, as I am not subscribed to this mailing list. Regards, R. Diez

2 1

Re: [flashrom] [announce] flashrom 1.0
by Nico Huber 04 Jan '18

04 Jan '18

Hi Ivan, sorry for ignoring you earlier. Adding more features to 1.0 was out of the question. It was branched about two months ago and every new feature should hit our master branch first. On 03.01.2018 13:34, Ivan Ivanov wrote: > Please tell - are there any real reasons why the Paul Kocialkowski's > KB9012 support patches > still cannot be merged? Yes, Paul answered that... > It is very discouraging - after 2 years of > waiting to not see them at 1.0 It is indeed. There are also unmerged patches that are nearly 8 years old... (not to mention patches in forks of flashrom). But things might get better in the future. At least everything currently pushed to gerrit gets a review. And I'm working on cleaning up old patches on patchwork as well. > Is there any way to get these patches merged, and maybe re-tag the > flashrom 1.0 release ? No, not really. And it doesn't matter, IMHO. The purpose of this release was to release a stable state of what was merged already. There will be a next release and hopefully many after that. Nico

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom January 2018