flashrom

flashrom@flashrom.org

6 participants
9162 discussions

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Board enable for ASUS P5LP-LE
by Uwe Hermann 25 Aug '11

25 Aug '11

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:27:15PM +0200, Michael Karcher wrote: > + * - ASUS P5LP-LE (Epson/HP OEM) OK, this one is going to be interesting. The board is made by ASUS for HP, it seems. HP calls it "Leonite" or "Leonite-GL8E". http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&docname=c008… But that would have been too easy. There are a bunch of other boards on the HP site which are also called P5LP-LE, but have different HP code names. From a quick glance I see at least: P5LP-LE (Leonite) P5LP-LE (Leonite2) P5LP-LE (Lithium) P5LP-LE (Limestone) P5LP-LE (Emery) Fun! I don't know how to differ between them, the dmidecode from Leon Zhang <leoncamel(a)gmail.com> said: DMI string system-manufacturer: "EPSON DIRECT CORP." DMI string system-product-name: "Endeavor MT7700" DMI string system-version: "" DMI string baseboard-manufacturer: "ASUSTek Computer INC." DMI string baseboard-product-name: "P5LP-LE" We don't know if other "P5LP-LE" might have the "Leonite" (or other) HP code name in there or not. Maybe something is printed as silkscreen on the board? An then one of these HP OEM boards is built into the Epson "Endeavor MT7700" system/PC. So it's a bit unclear which vendor/board name we should use in this case. It's probably best to mention all of them for better googling results. Attached is a slightly updated patch for review, let me know what you think. Uwe. -- http://hermann-uwe.de | http://sigrok.org http://randomprojects.org | http://unmaintained-free-software.org

3 2

Failed Flashing Intel 3420 Chipset
by Shailendra Sodhi 25 Aug '11

25 Aug '11

Hi, Hi we use flashroom tool to flash our X8DTH and X8DTU Supermicro boards now when we try to flash X8SIE-F Motherboard with Intel 3420 chipset flashrom fails with error. Attached a file(s) detailing error. Please let me know if any further information required to make this work. Regards, Shailendra

2 2

Re: [flashrom] report for Intel QM67 | Winbond W25Q64 - layout patches
by Tadas Slotkus 24 Aug '11

24 Aug '11

> I'm using the 0.9.4 from http://www.flashrom.org/Downloads. > > Isn't this the latest? For developing patches use latest svn revision.

1 0

Re: [flashrom] report for Intel QM67 | Winbond W25Q64 - layout patches
by Stefan Tauner 24 Aug '11

24 Aug '11

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:38:03 +0200 "Frei, Thomas (GE Germany)" <Thomas.Frei(a)ge.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I applied the patches 0001 - 0007, but now flashrom doesn't compile any more... :-( > > flashrom.c: In function verify_flash: > flashrom.c: 1234:3: error: implicit declaration of function msg_gsbg2 > flashrom.c: At top level: > flashrom.c: 1305:5: error: redefinition of write_buf_to_file > flashrom.c: 1281:5: note: previous definition of write_buf_to_file was here > flashrom.c: In function write_buf_to_file: > flashrom.c: 1311:2: error: implicit declaration of function write_dump_to_file > > can you please help here? > hi hm. how did you apply them? the reason i ask is because "msg_gsbg2" should have been "msg_gdbg2" (message general debug2) and it actually is in my posted patches afaics. the patches compile on my machine (on top of r1416 btw, probably other revisions too, but that's the one i compile tested with a few moments ago). which revision did you checkout/extract/fetch before applying the patches? i assume you are using one that is too old. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

2 1

[RFC] unsignify flashchip and programmer structs
by Stefan Tauner 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

i don't like the use of generic "int" qualifiers at all, even more the unsigned version for things like absolute addresses, lengths and sizes. of course negative values make sense in return types to indicate errors and in the case a function returns the length of actually bytes written on success and negative values on errors it makes sense to keep the parameters the same type (else the parameter length might be too big to return it on success). i would also like to change the types to more accurate ones someday (uint32_t etc.) instead, but i think that is not important as signedness. i want to assure myself that no one objects changing the following things to unsigned before i create a patch (which should be straight forward, but of course i will need to change quite many lines and also check that all functions will stay correct...). please speak up now or forever hold your peace etc... :) spi_programmer: int max_data_read; int max_data_write; (start + len parameters of:) int (*read)(struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, int start, int len); int (*write_256)(struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, int start, int len); (the return values just indicate success and failure with 0 and 1) struct flashchip: int total_size; (should also be converted to bytes instead of kB... i know this is on the todo already) int page_size; (start + len parameters of:) int (*write) (struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, int start, int len); int (*read) (struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, int start, int len); (again, the return value just indicates success, not bytes written) }; -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

1 1

Re: [flashrom] ASUS P5N-D
by Joshua Roys 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

On 08/18/2011 04:17 AM, Guillaume Poirier-Morency wrote: > I've been told, after an unsuccessful flashing, to send you these > outputs about my motherboard. > > My board remained intact! > > If you are interested into enabling it and developing patches to make it > compatible, I do not mind giving you feedback. > > Regards, > > Arteymis > > Hello, Please try the attached patch on top of the latest SVN and let us know how it works (reply with the output from `flashrom -Vw [...]'). For the devs: the board enable was identical to the P5N-E SLI, so I have bundled them together. Josh

3 4

Re: [flashrom] ASUS P5N-D
by Stefan Tauner 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:13:26 -0400 Guillaume Poirier-Morency <guillaumepoiriermorency(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I have checked my bash history. You were right, I was using 9.2. > > I have then moved to the svn folder and used ./flashrom and curiously, look > at what I have got from the log file... > > The file is slightly different, but it's still showing version 9.2 > > Launching the flashrom executable without any arguments, it tells me I'm > using 9.4 > > I suppose there is version typo in the program itself. Otherwise, maybe the > patch affect the version this way. i seriously doubt that. there is only a single string containing the version in the program and only one place where this single string is printed... i would recommend uninstalling the old version anyway. in this case it was not important, but in other cases it may break stuff. > Anyway, It's really using 9.4 and it works very well! that's the important thing anyway :) i'll make the appropriate changes in our repository, thanks for testing! -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

1 0

Re: [flashrom] ASUS P5N-D
by Stefan Tauner 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 05:34:28 -0400 Guillaume Poirier-Morency <guillaumepoiriermorency(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think there will soon be a new supported motherboard on your list! > > Here's the flashrom -Vw [...] output. nice! but what did you do exactly? the log shows version 0.9.2. did you patch that ancient version? why? could it be that you just rewrote with the old version by accident to get the verbose log? NB: the write protection remains disabled until reboot. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

2 1

Re: [flashrom] report for Intel QM67 | Winbond W25Q64 ([PATCH] (not for merge) ichspi: print BFPR (BIOS Flash Primary Region Register))
by Stefan Tauner 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:41:35 +0200 "Frei, Thomas (GE Germany)" <Thomas.Frei(a)ge.com> wrote: > please send me this patch - I first want to read out the flash - and if this works, I will try to write... > > I need this for production test. i have already posted my patches in the (sub)thread named "[PATCH 0/7] every layout handling feature you ever wanted to see but never cared to implement". if you are not subscribed to the list you could also fetch them from http://patchwork.coreboot.org/project/flashrom/list/ (all those with date 2011-08-19). i will mail them to you separately this time. you need at least 1-5 to be able to read. > Will this patch work without a layout file? I fnot, can you tell me how to generate it? no, it will not work without one. there is apparently no way to flash beyond the regions defined by the flash descriptor. the layout file can limit the address range accessed (to make it work). depending on how fine-grained you wanna use it you can define in the layout file ranges for each region as defined by the flash descriptor on your board (from this output of flashrom:) 0x54: 0x00000000 (FREG0: Flash Descriptor) 0x00000000-0x00000fff is read-write 0x58: 0x03ff0200 (FREG1: BIOS) 0x00200000-0x003fffff is read-write 0x5C: 0x01ff0001 (FREG2: Management Engine) 0x00001000-0x001fffff is read-write or just define one range for the whole accessible area (that would be something like 0x0 - 0x003fffff i would say) i think you will probably need to set the read_all_first variable in flashrom.c to 0 (and maybe also use the -w parameter) to be able to write without errors printed, else flashrom will try to read the whole flash before and after writing to verify its contents. i have told you already at least twice to look into our documentation. you know that this is my spare time and i am not here to do your work... if you have concrete questions about layout files or their usage we are happy to answer that, but "how do we do that?" makes me kinda angry, if it is already documented. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

1 0

[carFl mem] Reduce memory buffers
by Tadas Slotkus 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

Hi all, Sending initial patches, which reduce memory usage for flashrom in coreboot. Look 0-9 patches. To get some laugh at my stupidity look for 10-21 :) Thanks, Tadas

1 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom