flashrom

flashrom@flashrom.org

5 participants
9161 discussions

Problem with flashrom and FT2232 Port B
by Zak 22 Mar '17

22 Mar '17

Hello, I got flashrom compiled for windows and it works like a charm (has to tweet the code a little, add data for the chips i want to work with, add 4BA and fast rading for FT2232), it works perfectly fine but only for the port A (flashrom -p ft2232_spi:type=2232H,port=A) Using default programmer "ft2232_spi" with arguments "type=2232H,port=A". Calibrating delay loop... OK. Found Macronix flash chip "flashrom -p ft2232_spi:type=2232H,port=AMX25L25665E" (32768 kB, SPI) on ft2232_spi. Reading flash... (0% to done.) If i use the port B (flashrom -p ft2232_spi:type=2232H,port=B), i get this error Calibrating delay loop... OK. Unable to reset FTDI device (USB device unavailable). Unable to set latency timer (USB device unavailable). Unable to set bitmode to SPI (USB device unavailable). ftdi_write_data: -666, USB device unavailable Error: Programmer initialization failed. I get this error also if i try to compile with make CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER=PROGRAMMER_FT2232_SPI CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER_ARGS="type=2232H,port=B" to force port B I looked around i didn't find any solution to fix this, anyone could give me a hand? Thanks a bunch Regards

2 1

Re: [flashrom] Terminology to help distinguish different ways of using Flashrom
by Sam Kuper 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

On 19/03/2017, David Hendricks <david.hendricks(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: >> Is there a term that unambiguously describes method 2(b)? > > Just to clarify, in that situation is the ROM is in a dedicated programmer > such as http://www.dediprog.com/pd/universal-programmer/progmaster-u4 ? I'd > describe it as "standalone." Good to know. Thank you!

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Flashrom wiki: what license is the content under?
by Sam Kuper 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

On 20/03/2017, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: > On 20/03/2017, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> > wrote: >> On 18.03.2017 17:50, Sam Kuper wrote: >>> Ideally, Flashrom would license the content under the GFDL and CC >>> BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license-compatible with content >>> from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites. >> >> Any licensing which inhibits moving code comments to the wiki or vice >> versa is a really bad idea. > > I doubt this would be a problem in practice. I think there are > standard exceptions for this sort of thing. But I'll try to remember > to look into it, because if there *aren't* exceptions for it, then > you're right: it could be a problem. Also, even if the wiki content were licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, I don't see how there would be any more of an impediment to moving text between the code and the wiki than presently exists. Please correct me if you think I am mistaken.

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Flashrom wiki: what license is the content under?
by Carl-Daniel Hailfinger 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

Hi Sam, welcome to the flashrom mailing list. Starting almost identical discussions on two different mailing lists is not productive. It _might_ make sense to revisit this after the discussion on the coreboot mailing list has come to a conclusion. On 18.03.2017 17:50, Sam Kuper wrote: > I have looked at a number of pages on the Flashrom wiki, though not all of them. > > None of the pages I have looked at mentioned the license (if any) > under which their content is available. > > My understanding is that means that much (maybe all) of the > documentation in the Flashrom wiki is proprietary (at least, in the > overwhelming majority of jurisdictions). IANAL, though. > > [...] > Alternatively, it would be great if the Flashrom wiki contributors > could license the documentation in the wiki under one or more free > culture licenses: https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses > > Ideally, Flashrom would license the content under the GFDL and CC > BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license-compatible with content > from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites. Why would we want to do that? The GFDL is pretty much the worst licensing choice: it is GPL incompatible, so we would hurt ourselves by using it. CC licensing might make sense, but I don't see the benefit from making the content license-compatible with wikipedia (anything copied from third-party websites to wikipedia is quickly marked as copyvio, and then reverted), and stackexchange questions about flashrom usually receive zero upvotes (maybe because people tend to look elsewhere for flashrom information). Any licensing which inhibits moving code comments to the wiki or vice versa is a really bad idea. > If you agree with the position I have taken above, please do reply to > this thread to say so, especially if you have suggestions about how to > best achieve the (re-)licensing. > > If you disagree with my position, please reply to explain your disagreement. It looks like you're trying to start a vote with special rules where only those who disagree with you have the burden of explaining their position. I'm afraid that's not how it works. Regards, Carl-Daniel

2 1

Re: [flashrom] Terminology to help distinguish different ways of using Flashrom
by David Hendricks 19 Mar '17

19 Mar '17

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: > Is there a term that unambiguously describes method 2(b)? Just to clarify, in that situation is the ROM is in a dedicated programmer such as http://www.dediprog.com/pd/universal-programmer/progmaster-u4 ? I'd describe it as "standalone."

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Terminology to help distinguish different ways of using Flashrom
by Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott 19 Mar '17

19 Mar '17

On 2017-03-18 at 18:47, Sam Kuper wrote: > My understanding is that there are, broadly speaking, two distinct > methods for using Flashrom: > > 1. The chip being read or flashed is part of the circuitry on the > motherboard that is hosting the OS that is running the Flashrom > instance. > > 2. The chip being read or flashed is *not* part of the circuitry on > the motherboard that is hosting the OS that is running the Flashrom > instance. Instead, that chip is being accessed via a programmer of > some kind (e.g. a Bus Pirate, or BeagleBone Black, or suchlike). > > This second method can be further subdivided: > > 2(a). The chip being read or flashed is connected to a circuit other > than the one being used to program it. For example, it might be a BIOS > EEPROM chip that was soldered to a motherboard by a PC manufacturer, > and which has not been removed from that motherboard. > > 2(b). The chip being read or flashed is *not* connected to a circuit > other than the one being used to program it. For example, it might be > a brand new chip that has been inserted into a programmer's ZIF socket > so that it can be programmed. > > > I would be grateful to know if terminology exists that would > unambiguously identify which method is being referred to, out of 1, > 2(a), and 2(b). > > The closest I have come to finding such a vocabulary is the page at > https://www.flashrom.org/ISP . This doesn't go very far, though. It > implies that, at least within the Flashrom project, the phrase > "in-system programming" *usually* refers to 2(a), but it might also > refer to 1. ISP (or sometimes ICSP) refers to 2(a). Method 1 would be internal programming (cf. flashrom's "internal" programmer), software programming, or specifically programming from the host CPU (vs. programming from another in-circuit flash master like the Intel Management Engine). Any of these terms are likely to be understood, though flashrom typically goes with "internal" programming. In any case, these flashing methods and terms also aren't specific to flashrom and can apply in other flash memory programming contexts. -- Patrick "P. J." McDermott: http://www.pehjota.net/ Lead Developer, ProteanOS: http://www.proteanos.com/ Founder and CEO, Libiquity: http://www.libiquity.com/

2 1

Terminology to help distinguish different ways of using Flashrom
by Sam Kuper 18 Mar '17

18 Mar '17

My understanding is that there are, broadly speaking, two distinct methods for using Flashrom: 1. The chip being read or flashed is part of the circuitry on the motherboard that is hosting the OS that is running the Flashrom instance. 2. The chip being read or flashed is *not* part of the circuitry on the motherboard that is hosting the OS that is running the Flashrom instance. Instead, that chip is being accessed via a programmer of some kind (e.g. a Bus Pirate, or BeagleBone Black, or suchlike). This second method can be further subdivided: 2(a). The chip being read or flashed is connected to a circuit other than the one being used to program it. For example, it might be a BIOS EEPROM chip that was soldered to a motherboard by a PC manufacturer, and which has not been removed from that motherboard. 2(b). The chip being read or flashed is *not* connected to a circuit other than the one being used to program it. For example, it might be a brand new chip that has been inserted into a programmer's ZIF socket so that it can be programmed. I would be grateful to know if terminology exists that would unambiguously identify which method is being referred to, out of 1, 2(a), and 2(b). The closest I have come to finding such a vocabulary is the page at https://www.flashrom.org/ISP . This doesn't go very far, though. It implies that, at least within the Flashrom project, the phrase "in-system programming" *usually* refers to 2(a), but it might also refer to 1. Can anyone point me towards, or suggest, a more accurate terminology? Many thanks!

1 0

Write access to wiki (Was: Re: Flashrom wiki "Supported programmers" page: Beaglebone Black not listed.)
by Sam Kuper 18 Mar '17

18 Mar '17

On 18/03/2017, Luc Verhaegen <libv(a)skynet.be> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 05:52:28PM +0000, Sam Kuper wrote: >> On 18/03/2017, Luc Verhaegen <libv(a)skynet.be> wrote: >> > Also, Sam, it's a wiki. >> >> Yes, but it has no obvious way to create an account ;) I guess I could >> request one, here on the mailing list, but [...] > > This is currently an issue with both coreboot and flashrom. People > cannot easily get a wiki account, and those more involved are all > whining that the wiki is not useful. There's a connection. I didn't find it an issue with Coreboot. https://www.coreboot.org/Special:UserLogin has information about how to request an account, and the process worked smoothly. https://www.flashrom.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin doesn't have information about how to request an account. *It should do.* But, as I say, the main reason I don't have an account on the Flashrom wiki is not that I couldn't guess how to request one, but rather that I haven't requested one. (I hope that if I did request one, and gave a good reason for doing so, the request would be granted.) Anyway, thanks :)

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Flashrom wiki "Supported programmers" page: Beaglebone Black not listed.
by Luc Verhaegen 18 Mar '17

18 Mar '17

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 05:52:28PM +0000, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 18/03/2017, Luc Verhaegen <libv(a)skynet.be> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 05:52:15PM +0100, Stefan Tauner wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:45:14 +0000 > >> Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: > >> The existence of that page is rather a mistake. It has been > >> unmaintained for a long time and should be replaced. Instead the > >> Supported_hardware page (which is generated from flashrom's source > >> semi-automatically) should note the BBB and directly link to its page. > >> Will be like that... sometimes in the future. > > > > Add a programmer category, and have the categories listed on the > > supported hardware page. > > Sounds reasonable. > > > Also, Sam, it's a wiki. > > Yes, but it has no obvious way to create an account ;) I guess I could > request one, here on the mailing list, but: > > - I don't own a BBB, so wouldn't be the ideal person to add any > documentation for that; and > > - it didn't seem sensible to request a wiki account, if I did not have > a good use to which to put it. This is currently an issue with both coreboot and flashrom. People cannot easily get a wiki account, and those more involved are all whining that the wiki is not useful. There's a connection. Luc Verhaegen. Who made the linux-sunxi wiki that useful.

2 1

Re: [flashrom] Flashrom wiki "Supported programmers" page: Beaglebone Black not listed.
by Stefan Tauner 18 Mar '17

18 Mar '17

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:45:14 +0000 Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: > The BeagleBone Black (aka "BBB") is recommended by the Libreboot > developers for use with Flashrom: "We recommend this product because > we know that it works well for our purposes and doesn't require any > non-free software." https://libreboot.org/docs/install/bbb_setup.html > > However, it is missing from the "Supported programmers" page of the > Flashrom wiki: https://www.flashrom.org/Supported_programmers > Hi! The existence of that page is rather a mistake. It has been unmaintained for a long time and should be replaced. Instead the Supported_hardware page (which is generated from flashrom's source semi-automatically) should note the BBB and directly link to its page. Will be like that... sometimes in the future. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

3 3

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom