flashrom

flashrom@flashrom.org

6 participants
9186 discussions

[PATCH 0/4] Probing rewrite first try
by Stefan Tauner 16 Jun '14

16 Jun '14

This is based on '[PATCH 0/5] Bunch of stuff on the way to new probing' and requires at least some of them to apply cleanly. Maybe the posted ones are not up to date and do not allow to apply these cleanly. Please ping me in that case then I'll regroup and resend the whole set again. This patch set is not completely ready yet nor tested very throughly, but it is probably ready to be tested... please do so. Also, '[PATCH] Allow shifted JEDEC access' is not integrated yet and I think it should go into a follow up anyway. The opaque changes might be unwanted... Stefan Tauner (4): Get rid of .probe_timing. Get rid of FEATURE_ADDR_SHIFTED. Refine physical address mapping of flash chips. Complete probing rewrite. 82802ab.c | 50 +- Makefile | 2 +- at45db.c | 48 +- chipdrivers.h | 35 +- cli_classic.c | 132 +- en29lv640b.c | 27 +- flash.h | 82 +- flashchips.c | 4040 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- flashchips.h | 888 +++++++------ flashrom.c | 442 +++++-- ichspi.c | 52 +- jedec.c | 185 +-- m29f400bt.c | 23 +- opaque.c | 22 +- print.c | 13 +- print_wiki.c | 11 - programmer.c | 2 +- programmer.h | 5 +- sfdp.c | 109 +- spi25.c | 281 +--- stm50.c | 2 +- w29ee011.c | 37 +- 22 files changed, 3353 insertions(+), 3135 deletions(-) -- Kind regards, Stefan Tauner

1 0

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Add support for S25FL128P and S25FL128P......0 chips.
by Stefan Tauner 14 Jun '14

14 Jun '14

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:50:49 -0400 Liviu Toma <liviu.toma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This seems quite random, so I am not sure what's going on. I think that is exactly what is going on: broken communication that results in random outages and this "funny" behavior. > Before the first operation, I did a full erase, would the detect not work > if the chip is erased ? No, that has nothing to do with each other. >>> In that case I would ask you how the >>> chip is connected exactly, especially how WP# and HOLD# are driven. It is very important that all input pins of the flash chip are connected to a defined level but many people dont know that. Is it well connected in your case? Noise on an unconnected hold pin is about the number one of reasons for such erratic behavior. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

1 0

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Add support for S25FL128P and S25FL128P......0 chips.
by Liviu Toma 14 Jun '14

14 Jun '14

I re-seated my test clips and I tried again. The results were quite strange: *With the patched flashrom, using S25FL128P......1# /usr/src/flashrompatch/flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o write1.log -c "S25FL128P......1" -w rog.bin* flashrom v0.9.7-r1806 on Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae (i686) flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org Calibrating delay loop... OK. No EEPROM/flash device found. Note: flashrom can never write if the flash chip isn't found automatically. *With the patched flashrom using S25FL128P......0# /usr/src/flashrompatch/flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o write1.log -c "S25FL128P......0" -w rog.bin* flashrom v0.9.7-r1806 on Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae (i686) flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org Calibrating delay loop... OK. Found Spansion flash chip "S25FL128P......0" (16384 kB, SPI) on usbblaster_spi. === This flash part has status UNTESTED for operations: PROBE READ ERASE WRITE The test status of this chip may have been updated in the latest development version of flashrom. If you are running the latest development version, please email a report to flashrom(a)flashrom.org if any of the above operations work correctly for you with this flash part. Please include the flashrom output with the additional -V option for all operations you tested (-V, -Vr, -VE, -Vw), and mention which mainboard or programmer you tested. Please mention your board in the subject line. Thanks for your help! Reading old flash chip contents... done. Erasing and writing flash chip... FAILED at 0x00000000! Expected=0xff, Found=0x00, failed byte count from 0x00000000-0x0003ffff: 0x3 ERASE FAILED! Reading current flash chip contents... done. Erase/write done. Verifying flash... FAILED at 0x00000000! Expected=0xea, Found=0x00, failed byte count from 0x00000000-0x00ffffff: 0xeff72f Your flash chip is in an unknown state. Please report this on IRC at chat.freenode.net (channel #flashrom) or mail flashrom(a)flashrom.org, thanks! *With the patched flashrom using S25FL128P......1 again* *# /usr/src/flashrompatch/flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o write2.log -c "S25FL128P......1" -w rog.bin*flashrom v0.9.7-r1806 on Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae (i686) flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org Calibrating delay loop... OK. Found Spansion flash chip "S25FL128P......1" (16384 kB, SPI) on usbblaster_spi. === This flash part has status UNTESTED for operations: PROBE READ ERASE WRITE The test status of this chip may have been updated in the latest development version of flashrom. If you are running the latest development version, please email a report to flashrom(a)flashrom.org if any of the above operations work correctly for you with this flash part. Please include the flashrom output with the additional -V option for all operations you tested (-V, -Vr, -VE, -Vw), and mention which mainboard or programmer you tested. Please mention your board in the subject line. Thanks for your help! Reading old flash chip contents... done. Erasing and writing flash chip... Erase/write done. *Verifying flash... VERIFIED.* This seems quite random, so I am not sure what's going on. Before the first operation, I did a full erase, would the detect not work if the chip is erased ? Liviu On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Liviu Toma <liviu.toma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > Thanks, I will test again tonight when I get home. The content of the > rog.bin was the same for both attempts. > > Liviu > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Stefan Tauner < > stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> Thanks for the test, there are two issues here. One is that I swapped >> the erase block sizes of the P models. This is clearly shown in your >> logs. >> The ...0 model should have 64 kB erase blocks, but does not: >> > Trying erase function 0... 0x000000-0x03ffff:EFAILED at 0x00010000! >> Expected=0xff, Found=0xe5 >> 0x03ffff is 262143 in decimal... I have fixed that locally, but this is >> not the main problem here. >> >> The chip erase and the subsequent write should have worked, and your >> second try with the definition of the ...1 model too (because it >> contains the right block size). But both failed and I don't understand >> why yet. The first failed byte is equal in both cases but not all of >> them are (a different number of bytes fail in the two cases). This >> indicates that the behavior might be indeterministic. The contents of >> the "rog.bin" file were equal for both tries, right? >> What happens if you retry the second test again? >> /usr/src/flashrompatch/flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o write2.log -c >> S25FL128P......1 -w rog.bin >> If you can not reproduce exactly the same output, i.e. >> Verifying flash... FAILED at 0x0000005b! Expected=0xd3, Found=0xfb, >> failed byte count from 0x00000000-0x00ffffff: 0xaf66ea >> Then we are on the right track. In that case I would ask you how the >> chip is connected exactly, especially how WP# and HOLD# are driven. >> >> PS: You dont need to install flashrom after recompiling. You can >> execute the built binary in the source directory (make; ./flashrom ...). >> >> -- >> Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner >> > >

1 0

FAILED: PC Engines apu1c4
by Sven Dreyer 14 Jun '14

14 Jun '14

Hi guys, I just bought an PC Engines APU1C4 board, which the manufacturer says can be updated using flashrom. But in my case, it didn't seem to work. This is what happended: <SNIP> root@irmabox:~# flashrom -w apu140405.rom flashrom v0.9.5.2-r1546 on Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (x86_64) flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org Calibrating delay loop... OK. coreboot table found at 0xdffdf000. Found chipset "AMD SB7x0/SB8x0/SB9x0". Enabling flash write... OK. Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L1605" (2048 kB, SPI) at physical address 0xffe00000. Reading old flash chip contents... done. Erasing and writing flash chip... Erase/write done. Verifying flash... VERIFY FAILED at 0x00000000! Expected=0x4c, Read=0xcc, failed byte count from 0x00000000-0x001fffff: 0xe62f 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! root@irmabox:~# </SNIP> Of course, I did NOT power off or reboot the board. The bios file I tried to flash is an original bios from the manufacturer's site. Thanks for any hint. Best regards, Sven

1 1

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Add support for S25FL128P and S25FL128P......0 chips.
by Liviu Toma 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

This is the write log with -c "S25FL128P......1" On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Liviu Toma <liviu.toma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Here are the two files requested. The process failed, so I will try -c > "S25FL128P......1" and send you another log (it takes quite long, so > probably in an hour or so) > > Liviu > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Liviu Toma <liviu.toma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Stefan, >> >> I apologize I didn't have a chance to try it. I am just trying it now, I >> will report a bit later >> >> Liviu >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Stefan Tauner < >> stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 31 May 2014 23:07:35 +0200 >>> Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> >>> > S25FL128P is the predecessor family of S25FL128S. All these chips can >>> > not be distinguished without EDI. >>> > >>> > Additionally to the new S25FL128P chips, this patch also fixes the >>> name of >>> > the previously supported S25FL128S model with uniform 256 kB sectors >>> > (S25FL128P......1 not 0) and adds the hybrid sector version as well. >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> >>> > --- >>> > >>> > Since flashrom can not distinguish the chips itself, the user has to >>> > select the right chip with the -c parameter. >>> > >>> > Liviu, please apply this patch on top of r1806 and run flashrom once >>> > without any operation and without -c .... >>> > E.g. flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o probe.log >>> > >>> > And a second time with the correct chip selected to write *different* >>> data >>> > to the chip. >>> > E.g. flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o write.log -w newdata.bin -c >>> "S25FL128P......0" >>> > >>> > Please report back with the two log files. >>> >>> Hi Liviu, >>> >>> are you gonna test this patch? If not I would like to commit it >>> untested so that it does not become outdated. >>> >>> -- >>> Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner >>> >> >> >

1 0

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Add support for S25FL128P and S25FL128P......0 chips.
by Liviu Toma 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

Here are the two files requested. The process failed, so I will try -c "S25FL128P......1" and send you another log (it takes quite long, so probably in an hour or so) Liviu On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Liviu Toma <liviu.toma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > I apologize I didn't have a chance to try it. I am just trying it now, I > will report a bit later > > Liviu > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Stefan Tauner < > stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 May 2014 23:07:35 +0200 >> Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> >> > S25FL128P is the predecessor family of S25FL128S. All these chips can >> > not be distinguished without EDI. >> > >> > Additionally to the new S25FL128P chips, this patch also fixes the name >> of >> > the previously supported S25FL128S model with uniform 256 kB sectors >> > (S25FL128P......1 not 0) and adds the hybrid sector version as well. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> >> > --- >> > >> > Since flashrom can not distinguish the chips itself, the user has to >> > select the right chip with the -c parameter. >> > >> > Liviu, please apply this patch on top of r1806 and run flashrom once >> > without any operation and without -c .... >> > E.g. flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o probe.log >> > >> > And a second time with the correct chip selected to write *different* >> data >> > to the chip. >> > E.g. flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o write.log -w newdata.bin -c >> "S25FL128P......0" >> > >> > Please report back with the two log files. >> >> Hi Liviu, >> >> are you gonna test this patch? If not I would like to commit it >> untested so that it does not become outdated. >> >> -- >> Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner >> > >

1 0

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Add support for S25FL128P and S25FL128P......0 chips.
by Stefan Tauner 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

On Sat, 31 May 2014 23:07:35 +0200 Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > S25FL128P is the predecessor family of S25FL128S. All these chips can > not be distinguished without EDI. > > Additionally to the new S25FL128P chips, this patch also fixes the name of > the previously supported S25FL128S model with uniform 256 kB sectors > (S25FL128P......1 not 0) and adds the hybrid sector version as well. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> > --- > > Since flashrom can not distinguish the chips itself, the user has to > select the right chip with the -c parameter. > > Liviu, please apply this patch on top of r1806 and run flashrom once > without any operation and without -c .... > E.g. flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o probe.log > > And a second time with the correct chip selected to write *different* data > to the chip. > E.g. flashrom -p usbblaster_spi -o write.log -w newdata.bin -c "S25FL128P......0" > > Please report back with the two log files. Hi Liviu, are you gonna test this patch? If not I would like to commit it untested so that it does not become outdated. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

2 1

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Add selfcheck_board_enables().
by Carl-Daniel Hailfinger 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

Am 31.05.2014 05:04 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > Check for NULL termination of the array, that each board has the two > main PCI ID sets defined, that coreboot vendor and model fields are either > both set or unset, and that either an enable function or a max decode size is > available. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> Excellent, thank you! Please make sure to commit the additional #ifdef fix you posted in a followup as well. Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/

2 1

[commit] r1821 - trunk
by repository service 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

Author: stefanct Date: Fri Jun 13 00:57:36 2014 New Revision: 1821 URL: http://flashrom.org/trac/flashrom/changeset/1821 Log: Add selfcheck_board_enables(). Check for NULL termination of the array, that each board has the two main PCI ID sets defined, that coreboot vendor and model fields are either both set or unset, and that at least either an enable function or a max decode size is available. Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> Modified: trunk/board_enable.c trunk/flashrom.c trunk/programmer.h Modified: trunk/board_enable.c ============================================================================== --- trunk/board_enable.c Thu Jun 12 23:07:03 2014 (r1820) +++ trunk/board_enable.c Fri Jun 13 00:57:36 2014 (r1821) @@ -2463,6 +2463,36 @@ { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, NULL, NULL, NULL, P3, NULL, NULL, 0, NT, NULL}, /* end marker */ }; +int selfcheck_board_enables(void) +{ + if (board_matches[ARRAY_SIZE(board_matches) - 1].vendor_name != NULL) { + msg_gerr("Board enables table miscompilation!\n"); + return 1; + } + + int ret = 0; + unsigned int i; + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(board_matches) - 1; i++) { + const struct board_match *b = &board_matches[i]; + if (b->vendor_name == NULL || b->board_name == NULL) { + msg_gerr("ERROR: Board enable #%d does not define a vendor and board name.\n" + "Please report a bug at flashrom(a)flashrom.org\n", i); + ret = 1; + continue; + } + if ((b->first_vendor == 0 || b->first_device == 0 || + b->second_vendor == 0 || b->second_device == 0) || + ((b->lb_vendor == NULL) ^ (b->lb_part == NULL)) || + (b->max_rom_decode_parallel == 0 && b->enable == NULL)) { + msg_gerr("ERROR: Board enable for %s %s is misdefined.\n" + "Please report a bug at flashrom(a)flashrom.org\n", + b->vendor_name, b->board_name); + ret = 1; + } + } + return ret; +} + /* Parse the <vendor>:<board> string specified by the user as part of -p internal:mainboard=<vendor>:<board>. * Parameters vendor and model will be overwritten. Returns 0 on success. * Note: strtok modifies the original string, so we work on a copy and allocate memory for the results. Modified: trunk/flashrom.c ============================================================================== --- trunk/flashrom.c Thu Jun 12 23:07:03 2014 (r1820) +++ trunk/flashrom.c Fri Jun 13 00:57:36 2014 (r1821) @@ -1758,6 +1758,10 @@ } } +#if CONFIG_INTERNAL == 1 + ret |= selfcheck_board_enables(); +#endif + /* TODO: implement similar sanity checks for other arrays where deemed necessary. */ return ret; } Modified: trunk/programmer.h ============================================================================== --- trunk/programmer.h Thu Jun 12 23:07:03 2014 (r1820) +++ trunk/programmer.h Fri Jun 13 00:57:36 2014 (r1821) @@ -260,6 +260,7 @@ #if CONFIG_INTERNAL == 1 /* board_enable.c */ +int selfcheck_board_enables(void); int board_parse_parameter(const char *boardstring, const char **vendor, const char **model); void w836xx_ext_enter(uint16_t port); void w836xx_ext_leave(uint16_t port);

1 0

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH 2/2] Remove MCP6/7/8 SPI log requests.
by Carl-Daniel Hailfinger 12 Jun '14

12 Jun '14

Am 03.06.2014 22:57 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > We got enough (and no one is looking at them for the time being anyway). > Also, return an error code in the case no bus type could be detected. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom