flashrom

flashrom@flashrom.org

5 participants
9186 discussions

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

[PATCH] spi25: get rid of unneccessary line breaks (on failed probes)
by Stefan Tauner 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

--- not sure if this is correct for all execution paths, but it fixes the output of a probe on my thinkpad. i have looked a bit around to find examples of code that this patch would break and found none though. without this patch: Probing for Spansion S25FL064A, 8192 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xef, id2 0x3017 Probing for SST SST25LF040A, 512 kB: Invalid OPCODE 0xab, will not execute. Probing for SST SST25LF080A, 1024 kB: Invalid OPCODE 0xab, will not execute. Probing for SST SST25VF010.REMS, 128 kB: Invalid OPCODE 0x90, will not execute. Probing for SST SST25VF016B, 2048 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xef, id2 0x3017 with this patch: Probing for Spansion S25FL064A, 8192 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xef, id2 0x3017 Probing for SST SST25LF040A, 512 kB: Invalid OPCODE 0xab, will not execute. Probing for SST SST25LF080A, 1024 kB: Invalid OPCODE 0xab, will not execute. Probing for SST SST25VF010.REMS, 128 kB: Invalid OPCODE 0x90, will not execute. Probing for SST SST25VF016B, 2048 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xef, id2 0x3017 Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)student.tuwien.ac.at> --- spi25.c | 4 ---- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/spi25.c b/spi25.c index 937ee5d..c9fe9ec 100644 --- a/spi25.c +++ b/spi25.c @@ -120,7 +120,6 @@ static int probe_spi_rdid_generic(struct flashchip *flash, int bytes) uint32_t id2; if (spi_rdid(readarr, bytes)) { - msg_cdbg("\n"); return 0; } @@ -201,7 +200,6 @@ int probe_spi_rems(struct flashchip *flash) uint32_t id1, id2; if (spi_rems(readarr)) { - msg_cdbg("\n"); return 0; } @@ -259,7 +257,6 @@ int probe_spi_res1(struct flashchip *flash) } if (spi_res(readarr, 1)) { - msg_cdbg("\n"); return 0; } @@ -283,7 +280,6 @@ int probe_spi_res2(struct flashchip *flash) uint32_t id1, id2; if (spi_res(readarr, 2)) { - msg_cdbg("\n"); return 0; } -- 1.7.1

1 0

[PATCH] dmi: add "Sealed-case PC" to the list of non-laptop chassis
by Stefan Tauner 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

--- not sure though if all other computers with that chassis type are "in all likelihood not a laptop". Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)student.tuwien.ac.at> --- dmi.c | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/dmi.c b/dmi.c index 8f78376..5f64b94 100644 --- a/dmi.c +++ b/dmi.c @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static const struct { {0x0e, 1, "Sub Notebook"}, {0x11, 0, "Main Server Chassis"}, {0x17, 0, "Rack Mount Chassis"}, + {0x18, 0, "Sealed-case PC"}, /* used by Supermicro (X8SIE) */ }; #define DMI_COMMAND_LEN_MAX 260 -- 1.7.1

1 0

Re: [flashrom] flashrom accepts its command line parameters as a file name to read to
by Stefan Tauner 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:57:59 +0200 Idwer Vollering <vidwer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/8/18 Christophe Poncy <cp(a)canaxis.org>: > > Hi, > > > > ... > > > # ./flashrom -r -L > > This shouldn't be allowed. hm. actually i think this is normal behavior (for getopt-using applications). one arbitrary example: grep [OPTIONS] [-e PATTERN | -f FILE] [FILE...] # grep -e -f cli_classic.c this uses "-f" as a search pattern to look for in cli_classic.c i do agree though, that it might be unexpected, especially for windows users. and even if it is expected behavior no one would miss it, if we prohibit it. > What about disallowing the creation of files that have a name listed > in cli_classic.c's optstring[] and/or long_options[] ? or prohibiting any option parameters to be started with "-" (this includes all the file names, but also: - chip names (not an issue so far) - mainboard names (ditto) - layout file names and region names (probably tolerable too) - programmer parameters (also not an issue i presume) -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Update of Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2HP motherboard firmware switch
by Stefan Tauner 21 Aug '11

21 Aug '11

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 08:40:54 -0600 Donovan Lavinder <drmario2007(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > here's the log: > > ;root@sysresccd /root % flashrom > ;flashrom v0.9.3-r1205 on Linux 2.6.38-std230-i586 (i686), built with libpci > 3.1. > ;7, GCC 4.4.5, little endian > ;flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org > ; > ; > ;Calibrating delay loop... OK. > ;coreboot table found at 0x6fffe000. > ;Found ITE Super I/O, ID 0x8718. > ;Found Chipset "AMD SB700/SB710/SB750", enabling flash write... OK. > ;This chipset supports the following protocols: LPC,FWH,SPI. > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller > ; > > After that, that's it.... > a verbose one (with -V or even -VVV) please i am not familiar with the it87xx code, but i would say it hangs in the while loop at the end of it8716f_spi_send_command. it would be easy to add a timeout there, but the question is why it does hang there (now). -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

2 1

Re: [flashrom] MSI H55-GD65 (MS-7637) (H55, locked ME region, FLOCKDN=0(!))
by Bernd Blaauw 21 Aug '11

21 Aug '11

Op 21-8-2011 3:40, Donovan Lavinder schreef: > to use Linux Live CD mentioned in flashrom download page, as FreeDOS > have managed to brick all of the firmware image I have been trying to > flash. Fed up, I went to get the live CD, it works now. I used > SystemRescueCd distro (you need to figure out how to mount the hard > drive or jump drive to be able to have flashrom to download the firmware > ROM - for example: mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/disk0 ), so far, this distro is > quite nice to have! I thought ramdisks make fine temporary storage? No need to mount harddisk then. It seems a bit strange to claim FreeDOS (or DJGPP-compiled flashrom) ruined your flash image. I guess file hashes would give a definitive answer to what's the issue. I have to admit though that sometimes that FreeDOS kernel has had some FAT-related issues, no guarantee they're all solved. goodluck with CoreBoot as well! So far the Asrock E350 board seems best to experiment with, though I'd like the fanless/passive Asus E350 board instead.

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Update of Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2HP motherboard firmware switch
by Donovan Lavinder 21 Aug '11

21 Aug '11

> here's the log: ;root@sysresccd /root % flashrom ;flashrom v0.9.3-r1205 on Linux 2.6.38-std230-i586 (i686), built with libpci 3.1. ;7, GCC 4.4.5, little endian ;flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org ; ; ;Calibrating delay loop... OK. ;coreboot table found at 0x6fffe000. ;Found ITE Super I/O, ID 0x8718. ;Found Chipset "AMD SB700/SB710/SB750", enabling flash write... OK. ;This chipset supports the following protocols: LPC,FWH,SPI. ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ;4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller ; After that, that's it.... On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Donovan Lavinder <drmario2007(a)gmail.com>wrote: > The flashrom is the only program that froze when looking for the flash > chip. I have tried cold reboot - same thing happened. That here, was a > head-scratcher since it is not even supposed to happen. Probably it could be > because the firmware unmounted itself (shouldn't happen). The whole OS ran > fine otherwise (I could close the frozen flashrom program with ease). I am > wondering how could SuperIO refuse the handshake between the flashrom - I > left it alone for a while, no change in the behavior (as far as the verbose > terminal emulator was concerned). > > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Stefan Tauner < > stefan.tauner(a)student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:27:02 -0600 >> Donovan Lavinder <drmario2007(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > That's strange. I have tried rewriting the firmware so I COULD provide >> you >> > the text file... It froze after couple complaints of 4-byte RDID not >> found >> > (it just ignored that before), and I tried just "flashrom", same thing. >> Now >> > that's a can of worm. It was 100% successful - verified and signed. Now >> I am >> > somewhat confused. I may have to wait for a while (thankfully I still >> have a >> > Windows laptop so I could write up the report on progresses of the >> firmware >> > ROM.) >> >> the 4 byte RDID warnings should not matter. the chip you have does not >> need it. it is just printed for other chips that are probed for by >> flashrom. you can use the -c <chipname> parameter to probe for the >> correct chip only. regarding the lockup i can't say much without a log, >> but that it should not happen. :) does it reliably happen while probing >> for the same chip or is it (seemingly) random? could you also please >> define "froze" precisely? is it flashrom alone or the whole OS etc? >> >> -- >> Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner >> > > > > -- > "Mamma-mia, there's Koopa troopa in Mushroom Kingdom!" > -- "Mamma-mia, there's Koopa troopa in Mushroom Kingdom!"

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom