Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] nicintel_eeprom: New programmer for Intel Nics eeproms

[Ricardo Ribalda Delgado]

ping?

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Is there any status change here? There are other people using this patch.
>
> http://www.projectosx.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2485&st=20&start...
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado
>  wrote:
> > Hello Stefan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Stefan Tauner
> >  wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:25:39 +0200
> > > Ricardo Ribalda Delgado  wrote:
> > > > ping?
> > >
> > > Hi Ricardo,
> > >
> > > I would have hoped for a more generic patch that adds some
> > > eeprom-specific infrastructure, but your approach seems to be legit
> > > when implementing this with the current infrastructure in flashrom.
> > > Sorry for not mentioning the opaque API before, that is of course the
> > > easiest way to get such things to work.
> >
> > I thought about it, but I soon realized that it was probably not the
> > best option.
> >
> > The intel cards supports a limited ammount of chips, and the
> > read/write is not very standard. They are read by the card firmware,
> > but written with something spi_alike, but no jedec or anything to find
> > out the model of the eeprom.
> > > Would it be even possible to probe for IDs of the EEPROMs with the
> > > interface on the Intel NICs? What EEPROM model(s) do see on your boards?
> >
> > You can ask the network card for the size of the eeprom.  That is done
> > in nicintel_ee_probe
> >
> > According to the doc this eeproms can be used:
> >
> > 128 AT25128AN-10SI-2.7 M95128WMN6T CAT25CS128-TE13
> > 256 AT25256AN-10SI-2.7 M95256WMN6T
> >
> > All of them have the same instruction set. And unfortunately there is
> > no id instruction
> >
> > So, if the board is an intel card and it says that the size is 128
> > kbits, then it is a chip from the first row, otherwise it is from the
> > second
> > > I have not reviewed your patch in detail yet. There are probably a few
> > > coding style issues etc., but we can fix that ourselves if we have to.
> >
> > I could not find a coding style, so I tried to stick to the kernel one.
> > > The bigger question is if we want to add something like it at all. I
> > > don't see good reason why we should not, but I need to discuss this
> > > with my colleague(s) (and that usually takes more time than one would
> > > expect). In any case your code is out there and can be used even if it
> > > does not get merged into vanilla flashrom eventually and your work is
> > > much appreciated, thank you.
> >
> > That was the whole point, that this could be reused by somebody else.
> > And the program more standard up to date is yours :)
> >
> > Thaks!
> > >