When I boot with iomem=relaxed and enable flash writing in my BIOS I get the following result with my Celsius H265 notebook:
flashrom -p internal:laptop=force_I_want_a_brick --read celsius2.rom
flashrom p1.0-74-g2568357 on Linux 4.17.0-rc3+ (x86_64) flashrom is free software, get the source code at https://flashrom.org
Using clock_gettime for delay loops (clk_id: 1, resolution: 1ns). ======================================================================== WARNING! You seem to be running flashrom on an unsupported laptop. Laptops, notebooks and netbooks are difficult to support and we recommend to use the vendor flashing utility. The embedded controller (EC) in these machines often interacts badly with flashing. See the manpage and https://flashrom.org/Laptops for details.
If flash is shared with the EC, erase is guaranteed to brick your laptop and write may brick your laptop. Read and probe may irritate your EC and cause fan failure, backlight failure and sudden poweroff. You have been warned. ======================================================================== Proceeding anyway because user forced us to. Found chipset "Intel ICH9M-E". Enabling flash write... OK. Found Winbond flash chip "W25X32" (4096 kB, SPI) mapped at physical address 0x00000000ffc00000. Reading flash... done.
However if I execute this twice I get two different images: wget https://www.elstel.org/uploads/celsius.rom wget https://www.elstel.org/uploads/celsius2.rom
Using vbindiff I can see that quite a lot is different between both images. - which would be difficult to achieve if the firmware was changed while I am running my computer. The image may be somehow corrupted as me_cleaner (BIOS offers Intel AMT) can not process the image:
python ../me_cleaner/me_cleaner.py -S -O celsius-no-me.rom celsius.rom Unknown image
See also the dmidecode that I have attached. How can it be that both images are different? Do you think that the images are corrupted? If so what could we do about it?
-
David Hendricks -
Elmar Stellnberger -
Nico Huber