flashrom

flashrom@flashrom.org

5 participants
9161 discussions

Re: [flashrom] Windows Help
by Jason Jacobs 12 Aug '16

12 Aug '16

Urja, Thanks for the response. The issue I am having is setting the baud in Windows to 20000000, it gets rounded down to 115200. I have been unsuccessful in all the attempts to get around this. There is a way to alias a baud in the FTDI drivers so that when you set the baud to 300 for instance, it is actually 2000000. I tried this, and it didn’t work in flashrom but I did verify that the port is actually being set to 2000000 and data is being send to the Arduino at 2000000. My question is, does flashrom do anything with the baud rate setting other than just set the port? Is it used for timing internally? If so, that would explain why flashrom doesn’t work with aliasing when I set the baud to 300 (which is actually 20000000). Thanks Jason -----Original Message----- From: Urja Rannikko [mailto:urjaman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 10:23 AM To: Jason Jacobs <Jason.Jacobs(a)FIRSTSOLAR.COM> Cc: flashrom(a)flashrom.org Subject: Re: [flashrom] Windows Help Hi, On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jason Jacobs <Jason.Jacobs(a)firstsolar.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > > First, thanks for the awesome software and all the time you put into this. > I am trying to use it on windows with serprog. I installed libusb and > setup my device with libusb and installed the driver. How do I tell > flashrom to use my libusb device now? I tried > serprog:dev=<devicenameindevicemanager>:2000000 but it didn’t work. I > have been searching a ton on how to do this but can’t figure it out. For serprog, you shouldnt be installing a libusb driver for the device, but just a normal serial port driver (an .ini is needed for CDC ACM ports before win10, or an FTDI provided driver for ftdi devices, etc) , then use -p serprog:dev=COMx:2000000 where x is the COM port number in device manager for the serial port. (Also, be aware that this all works better on linux since thats where most of the developer resources are.)

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Windows Help
by Urja Rannikko 12 Aug '16

12 Aug '16

Hi, On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jason Jacobs <Jason.Jacobs(a)firstsolar.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > > First, thanks for the awesome software and all the time you put into this. > I am trying to use it on windows with serprog. I installed libusb and setup > my device with libusb and installed the driver. How do I tell flashrom to > use my libusb device now? I tried > serprog:dev=<devicenameindevicemanager>:2000000 but it didn’t work. I have > been searching a ton on how to do this but can’t figure it out. For serprog, you shouldnt be installing a libusb driver for the device, but just a normal serial port driver (an .ini is needed for CDC ACM ports before win10, or an FTDI provided driver for ftdi devices, etc) , then use -p serprog:dev=COMx:2000000 where x is the COM port number in device manager for the serial port. (Also, be aware that this all works better on linux since thats where most of the developer resources are.)

1 0

Windows Help
by Jason Jacobs 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

Hello, First, thanks for the awesome software and all the time you put into this. I am trying to use it on windows with serprog. I installed libusb and setup my device with libusb and installed the driver. How do I tell flashrom to use my libusb device now? I tried serprog:dev=<devicenameindevicemanager>:2000000 but it didn't work. I have been searching a ton on how to do this but can't figure it out. Thanks Jason

1 0

Release numbering and branches
by Nico Huber 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

Hi folks, now that we have a git repository [1] ready (thanks Stefan!), I've visited again the flashrom development guidelines [2]. I stumbled there over a very long, exemplary version number: "0.9.10.1". IMHO, two things are wrong here: 1st there are too many dots for my taste, and 2nd the former two numbers are meaningless. To avert that, I call for naming the next release "1.0". If necessary it would get point releases "1.0.1", "1.0.2" etc, of course. Regarding the naming of release tags and branches, I really like what the Linux people do. In their naming scheme the tag for "1.0" would be named `v1.0` and the branch `flashrom-1.0.y`. With different pre- fixes for tags/branches it's always obvious what is referred to, and with a wildcard (here the `y`) in the branch name the ongoing develop- ment is emphasized. Opinions? other proposals? Nico [1] https://www.flashrom.org/git/flashrom.git/ [2] https://www.flashrom.org/Development_Guidelines

3 2

Skylarks chipsets
by Jason La Mont 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

Hi, Is there, or are there plans to, support the Intel skylake CM236 PCH? Thanks, Lee Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Aspire One
by scrooyahoo＠riseup.net 06 Aug '16

06 Aug '16

Hi, In the Laptop table the Aspire one is listed as BAD But as there are so many different aspire one models i wonder if ALL Aspire one models are BAD In my case i have the ZG5 model also known as AOA110 (512MB) and AOA150 (1GB) These models have Winbond W25x80 EEPROMS (these are listed as supported, all OK I wonder what's the safest way to try? Also the link regarding the Aspire One in the Laptop table points to the coreboot mailing list, but in the entire post there is NO mention of the aspire one. Eventually i could de-solder the chip and try to flash it in an external programmer. I have 3 of these Acers that could use a fresh BIOS. (hopefully the latest one allows to boot from SD) Most Aspire One netbooks have BIOS issues and having a tool that doesn't require Microsoft would be very welcome. In software there is a mention of SST2400 and there is no mention of Winbond, but on the mainboard there is a Winbond 25x80 chip. Best, Wilfried

3 2

Re: [flashrom] Broadwell-DE SoC
by Wen Wang 05 Aug '16

05 Aug '16

I am able to update the BIOS region too using Nico's patches. Updating the entire flash is still an issue - timing out in ME region. Hopefully Intel could help address it. Many thanks to Nico and Ed! Wen -----Original Message----- From: Ed Swierk [mailto:eswierk@skyportsystems.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 7:22 PM To: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> Cc: Wen Wang <wen.wang(a)adiengineering.com>; flashrom(a)flashrom.org Subject: Re: [flashrom] Broadwell-DE SoC I flashed coreboot using an external programmer (RPi), and booted it. Now flashrom with Nico's patches works fine for reading, erasing and writing the BIOS region. Just need to specify the layout (-l) and image (-i), and verify only the region being updated (-A). When I switch back to the stock BIOS I'll grab more debug output to figure out the write protection issue. --Ed On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Ed, > > On 02.08.2016 21:34, Ed Swierk wrote: >> With Nico's patches, I am able to read the BIOS portion of the flash >> (0x08000000-0x10000000) on a Camelback Mountain board with the stock >> BIOS. > thanks for the report. > >> I haven't been able to write the BIOS portion of the flash, though, >> as it fails to erase the very first block. Despite the warning, the >> flash is left untouched. > Your log too seems incomplete (please send a full log with -o option), > I can't say if it's not just due to write protection. > >> [...] >> Warning: SPI Configuration Lockdown activated. > We are only allowed to use SPI commands specified below. > >> [...] >> 0x94: 0x5006 (PREOP) > Each byte in PREOP specfies an allowed pre command (0x06 prepares for > write). >> 0x96: 0x4ed0 (OPTYPE) >> 0x98: 0x0201009f (OPMENU) >> 0x9C: 0xc705d803 (OPMENU+4) > Each byte in OPMENU specifies an allowed SPI command. > >> [...] >> Erasing and writing flash chip... Trying erase function 0... >> 0x800000-0x800fff:EInvalid OPCODE 0x06, will not execute. >> spi_block_erase_20 failed during command execution at address >> 0x800000 > This is supposed to fail, as SPI command 0x20 is not allowed. > (It complains about 0x06 because that's always executed before 0x20). > >> Reading current flash chip contents... done. Looking for another erase function. >> Trying erase function 1... 0x800000-0x807fff:EInvalid OPCODE 0x06, >> will not execute. >> spi_block_erase_52 failed during command execution at address >> 0x800000 > 52 is not allowed too. > >> Reading current flash chip contents... done. Looking for another erase function. >> Trying erase function 2... 0x800000-0x80ffff:ETransaction error! >> SSFS: SCIP=0, FDONE=1, FCERR=1, AEL=0 >> SSFC: SCGO=0, ACS=1, SPOP=0, COP=5, DBC=0, SME=0, SCF=4 Running >> OPCODE 0xd8 failed at address 0x800000 (payload length was 0). >> spi_block_erase_d8 failed during command execution at address >> 0x800000 > d8 is allowed but fails, might be due to a write protection. > >> Reading current flash chip contents... done. Looking for another erase function. >> Trying erase function 3... 0x000000-0xffffff:RTransaction error! >> SSFS: SCIP=0, FDONE=1, FCERR=1, AEL=0 >> SSFC: SCGO=0, ACS=0, SPOP=0, COP=4, DBC=63, SME=0, SCF=4 Running >> OPCODE 0x03 failed at address 0x023000 (payload length was 64). > Here it tried to fall back to erasing the whole chip, which again > tries to read the ME region and fails. > >> Can't read! Aborting. >> FAILED! >> Uh oh. Erase/write failed. >> Your flash chip is in an unknown state. > The warning is correct IMHO, as flashrom really doesn't know the state. > > In any case you can also try the hardware sequencing mode of flashrom > (see flashrom's manpage). It let's the hardware choose the opcodes > based on the flash descriptor. > > Nico

1 0

i found the supported laptop table
by scrooyahoo＠riseup.net 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

There is an aspire one listed as not suported, but it does not sat what exact type aspire one it is. I have the AOA110, also knowns as AOA150 with more RAM and ZG5. hwinfo told me that it uses an SST2400 chip. But that's as far as my skills get. I'll try FreeDOS route Best, Wilfried

1 0

How do i know if it is safe to try this tool to flash a Aspire One AOA 110?
by scrooyahoo＠riseup.net 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

Dear flashrom crew, I downloaded the latest BIOS for aspire one AOA 110 In case it helps here are the links https://acer--uk.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/6054/~/updating-the-b… http://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/drivers http://global-download.acer.com/GDFiles/BIOS/BIOS/BIOS_Acer_3310_A_AOA110%2… Looks like the .fd file is the binary. But how do i know if this will work? Just trying to save some hardware from the scrapheap. So the risk is low, but it would be a shame if i brick this thing. Kind regards, Wilfried

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Broadwell-DE SoC
by Nico Huber 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

Hi Ed, On 02.08.2016 21:34, Ed Swierk wrote: > With Nico's patches, I am able to read the BIOS portion of the flash > (0x08000000-0x10000000) on a Camelback Mountain board with the stock > BIOS. thanks for the report. > I haven't been able to write the BIOS portion of the flash, though, as > it fails to erase the very first block. Despite the warning, the flash > is left untouched. Your log too seems incomplete (please send a full log with -o option), I can't say if it's not just due to write protection. > [...] > Warning: SPI Configuration Lockdown activated. We are only allowed to use SPI commands specified below. > [...] > 0x94: 0x5006 (PREOP) Each byte in PREOP specfies an allowed pre command (0x06 prepares for write). > 0x96: 0x4ed0 (OPTYPE) > 0x98: 0x0201009f (OPMENU) > 0x9C: 0xc705d803 (OPMENU+4) Each byte in OPMENU specifies an allowed SPI command. > [...] > Erasing and writing flash chip... Trying erase function 0... > 0x800000-0x800fff:EInvalid OPCODE 0x06, will not execute. > spi_block_erase_20 failed during command execution at address 0x800000 This is supposed to fail, as SPI command 0x20 is not allowed. (It complains about 0x06 because that's always executed before 0x20). > Reading current flash chip contents... done. Looking for another erase function. > Trying erase function 1... 0x800000-0x807fff:EInvalid OPCODE 0x06, > will not execute. > spi_block_erase_52 failed during command execution at address 0x800000 52 is not allowed too. > Reading current flash chip contents... done. Looking for another erase function. > Trying erase function 2... 0x800000-0x80ffff:ETransaction error! > SSFS: SCIP=0, FDONE=1, FCERR=1, AEL=0 > SSFC: SCGO=0, ACS=1, SPOP=0, COP=5, DBC=0, SME=0, SCF=4 > Running OPCODE 0xd8 failed at address 0x800000 (payload length was 0). > spi_block_erase_d8 failed during command execution at address 0x800000 d8 is allowed but fails, might be due to a write protection. > Reading current flash chip contents... done. Looking for another erase function. > Trying erase function 3... 0x000000-0xffffff:RTransaction error! > SSFS: SCIP=0, FDONE=1, FCERR=1, AEL=0 > SSFC: SCGO=0, ACS=0, SPOP=0, COP=4, DBC=63, SME=0, SCF=4 > Running OPCODE 0x03 failed at address 0x023000 (payload length was 64). Here it tried to fall back to erasing the whole chip, which again tries to read the ME region and fails. > Can't read! Aborting. > FAILED! > Uh oh. Erase/write failed. > Your flash chip is in an unknown state. The warning is correct IMHO, as flashrom really doesn't know the state. In any case you can also try the hardware sequencing mode of flashrom (see flashrom's manpage). It let's the hardware choose the opcodes based on the flash descriptor. Nico

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom