Hi,
there are so many features I wanted to have in flashrom 0.9.4, but delaying the release further is not going to help anyone.
Stefan Tauner probably has a few odd fixes in his queue, and I'm trying to find an acceptable fix for a segfault, and to spot the logic inversion which makes the write failure recovery code spit out the wrong message. I found a (corruption) bug in ICH IDSEL handling, need to post that fix and get it tested.
Anything else we need for 0.9.4? Do we have any other unmerged bugfixes? Doc fixes? The man page is missing some features.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 02:27:36 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Anything else we need for 0.9.4? Do we have any other unmerged bugfixes? Doc fixes? The man page is missing some features.
i have posted everything noteworthy i have but my usual "tested stuff" branch/patch (which can be committed anytime you wish). there are a few small things that should be easy to review/merge/decide:
Subject: [flashrom] [PATCH] satamv.c requires PCI port I/O Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:53:41 +0100
Subject: Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] don't print dmidecode shell error Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:44:03 +0200
i think everything else i am looking at would delay the release further or is not important enough. maybe the two pending chip additions could be merged on time:
Subject: Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Macronix MX25L6445E Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:13:50 +0200
and david's en25q patch is almost done. david: ping
the deadline for inclusion in ubuntu 11.10 is August 11th. but we probably need more time: uwe needs to package and upload it and someone needs to poke some ubuntu maintainers to initiate a manual sync of the package (and i guess they get pretty busy at the end).
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:10:21 +0200 Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 02:27:36 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Anything else we need for 0.9.4? Do we have any other unmerged bugfixes? Doc fixes? The man page is missing some features.
another thing that should be dealt with is the situation with ck804 boards. basically it seems as if we should clear one byte on all of those to disable some chipset-based write protection.
the board enable committed for the EP-8NPA7I is incomplete. it needs the following as well for the oem BIOS(es): http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/2125/
if that is applied in one way or another, the same board enable also works for the EP-9NPA7I: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3176/
if we want to distinguish those two, we would need something similar to this, because the pci ids are not enough (but we probably do not): http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3131/
another board that relies on the first patch is the ASUS P5N-E SLI (although it needs an additional board enable according to joshua). it was reported once back when the EP-8NPA7I board enable was developed and also recently by Joël Obrecht (who agreed to test any patches btw).
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:42:03 +0200 Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:10:21 +0200 Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 02:27:36 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Anything else we need for 0.9.4? Do we have any other unmerged bugfixes? Doc fixes? The man page is missing some features.
another thing that should be dealt with is the situation with ck804 boards. basically it seems as if we should clear one byte on all of those to disable some chipset-based write protection.
the board enable committed for the EP-8NPA7I is incomplete. it needs the following as well for the oem BIOS(es): http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/2125/
if that is applied in one way or another, the same board enable also works for the EP-9NPA7I: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3176/
if we want to distinguish those two, we would need something similar to this, because the pci ids are not enough (but we probably do not): http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3131/
another board that relies on the first patch is the ASUS P5N-E SLI (although it needs an additional board enable according to joshua). it was reported once back when the EP-8NPA7I board enable was developed and also recently by Joël Obrecht (who agreed to test any patches btw).
i have applied what i think is the minimum solution that should be done for a stable release (i.e. 0.9.4) to my tested stuff branch (attached as independent patch). - mark the EP-8NPA7I as not working in print.c and add a comment pointing to jonathan's patch. - add the EP-9NPA7I to print.c like the EP-8NPA7I (epox hp is dead btw) - add the P5N-E SLI to print.c including a note mentioning the patch and the need for a board enable. - add dmi matching to the EP-8NPA7I board enable and mark it as NT... there is no "not working" flag, because we usually do not include not working board enables in the first place :) i dont want to remove it altogether now though and have added a comment instead that also points to jonathan's patch. ok?
Am 20.07.2011 15:31 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
i have applied what i think is the minimum solution that should be done for a stable release (i.e. 0.9.4) to my tested stuff branch (attached as independent patch).
- mark the EP-8NPA7I as not working in print.c and add a comment pointing to jonathan's patch.
- add the EP-9NPA7I to print.c like the EP-8NPA7I (epox hp is dead btw)
- add the P5N-E SLI to print.c including a note mentioning the patch and the need for a board enable.
- add dmi matching to the EP-8NPA7I board enable and mark it as NT... there is no "not working" flag, because we usually do not include not working board enables in the first place :) i dont want to remove it altogether now though and have added a comment instead that also points to jonathan's patch. ok?
From: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:29:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] mark some ck804 boards as not working
P5N-E SLI, EP-8NPA7I and EP-9NPA7I all need at least this patch: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/2125/ mark them as not working until it is merged.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Can you commit all changesets in your tested stuff branch? Thanks!
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:58:13 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Am 20.07.2011 15:31 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
i have applied what i think is the minimum solution that should be done for a stable release (i.e. 0.9.4) to my tested stuff branch (attached as independent patch).
- mark the EP-8NPA7I as not working in print.c and add a comment pointing to jonathan's patch.
- add the EP-9NPA7I to print.c like the EP-8NPA7I (epox hp is dead btw)
- add the P5N-E SLI to print.c including a note mentioning the patch and the need for a board enable.
- add dmi matching to the EP-8NPA7I board enable and mark it as NT... there is no "not working" flag, because we usually do not include not working board enables in the first place :) i dont want to remove it altogether now though and have added a comment instead that also points to jonathan's patch. ok?
From: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:29:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] mark some ck804 boards as not working
P5N-E SLI, EP-8NPA7I and EP-9NPA7I all need at least this patch: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/2125/ mark them as not working until it is merged.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
thanks, r1382
Can you commit all changesets in your tested stuff branch? Thanks!
see IRC
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Stefan Tauner