Multiple flash chip defs on one chip

[OMGdaDPS]

I wouldalso like to report that i have found a few flash chips, that when read or attempted do perform any action on, it tells me that there are multiple chips found:

`dps@vulcan:~$ sudo flashrom --programmer ch341a_spi -r backup.bin
flashrom on Linux 5.0.0-36-generic (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).
Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405D" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
Multiple flash chip definitions match the detected chip(s): "MX25L6405", "MX25L6405D", "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E", "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F"
Please specify which chip definition to use with the -c <chipname> option`

what does this mean?

[David Hendricks]

Hi Christopher,
This means that Macronix reuses chip IDs for multiple chips with different
capabilities (hence why there are multiple chip entries). It's very
frustrating. I recommend avoiding Macronix and using a different flash chip
vendor if you can.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:45 PM OMGdaDPS 
wrote:
> I wouldalso like to report that i have found a few flash chips, that when
> read or attempted do perform any action on, it tells me that there are
> multiple chips found:
>
> `dps@vulcan:~$ sudo flashrom  --programmer ch341a_spi -r backup.bin
> flashrom  on Linux 5.0.0-36-generic (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).
> Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405D" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E" (8192 kB, SPI) on
> ch341a_spi.
> Found Macronix flash chip
> "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F" (8192 kB, SPI) on
> ch341a_spi.
> Multiple flash chip definitions match the detected chip(s): "MX25L6405",
> "MX25L6405D", "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E",
> "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F"
> Please specify which chip definition to use with the -c <chipname> option`
>
> what does this mean?
> [image: Sent from Mailspring]
> _______________________________________________
> flashrom mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[OMGdaDPS]

ah, ok thank you for explaining this to me. im kinda bummed out on this one, because i was hoping i had just found a 32mb chip lol.

On Nov 20 2019, at 12:48 am, David Hendricks  wrote:
> Hi Christopher,
> This means that Macronix reuses chip IDs for multiple chips with different capabilities (hence why there are multiple chip entries). It's very frustrating. I recommend avoiding Macronix and using a different flash chip vendor if you can.
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:45 PM OMGdaDPS <[e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail])> wrote:
> > I wouldalso like to report that i have found a few flash chips, that when read or attempted do perform any action on, it tells me that there are multiple chips found:
> >
> > `dps@vulcan:~$ sudo flashrom --programmer ch341a_spi -r backup.bin
> > flashrom on Linux 5.0.0-36-generic (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).
> > Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> > Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405D" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> > Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> > Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> > Multiple flash chip definitions match the detected chip(s): "MX25L6405", "MX25L6405D", "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E", "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F"
> > Please specify which chip definition to use with the -c <chipname> option`
> >
> > what does this mean?
> > _______________________________________________
> > flashrom mailing list -- [e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail])
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail])

[Iru Cai]

Actually specify whatever chip will be ok. A common chip in the
laptops is MX25L6445E, but using MX25L6405 is also ok. I remember the
flashrom modified by libreboot has merged all these chips.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 06:38:15PM -0500, OMGdaDPS wrote:
> I wouldalso like to report that i have found a few flash chips, that when read or attempted do perform any action on, it tells me that there are multiple chips found:
>
> `dps@vulcan:~$ sudo flashrom --programmer ch341a_spi -r backup.bin
> flashrom on Linux 5.0.0-36-generic (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).
> Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405D" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> Multiple flash chip definitions match the detected chip(s): "MX25L6405", "MX25L6405D", "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E", "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F"
> Please specify which chip definition to use with the -c <chipname> option`
>
> what does this mean?
> flashrom mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[OMGdaDPS]

i have the latest one from the flashrom.org website, is there one that i could get and build from the libreboot site?

On Nov 20 2019, at 2:26 am, Iru Cai  wrote:
> Actually specify whatever chip will be ok. A common chip in the
> laptops is MX25L6445E, but using MX25L6405 is also ok. I remember the
> flashrom modified by libreboot has merged all these chips.
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 06:38:15PM -0500, OMGdaDPS wrote:
> > I wouldalso like to report that i have found a few flash chips, that when read or attempted do perform any action on, it tells me that there are multiple chips found:
> >
> > `dps@vulcan:~$ sudo flashrom --programmer ch341a_spi -r backup.bin
> > flashrom on Linux 5.0.0-36-generic (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).
> > Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> > Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6405D" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> > Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> > Found Macronix flash chip "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F" (8192 kB, SPI) on ch341a_spi.
> > Multiple flash chip definitions match the detected chip(s): "MX25L6405", "MX25L6405D", "MX25L6406E/MX25L6408E", "MX25L6436E/MX25L6445E/MX25L6465E/MX25L6473E/MX25L6473F"
> > Please specify which chip definition to use with the -c <chipname> option`
> >
> > what does this mean?
> > _______________________________________________
> > flashrom mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Nico Huber]

On 20.11.19 08:26, Iru Cai wrote:
> Actually specify whatever chip will be ok. A common chip in the
> laptops is MX25L6445E, but using MX25L6405 is also ok. I remember the
> flashrom modified by libreboot has merged all these chips.

Rule of thumb: If libreboot does something downstream, it's wrong.

Reading is always safe, no matter which entry is selected. But, depen-
ding on the programmer and options used and the reliability of the
connection, all hell can break loose if the wrong entry is selected.
The problem is that these chips often use the same commands for erasing
different block sizes.

For instance, internal flashing on an Intel system where certain SPI
commands can be forbidden, if flashrom erases too much by accident and
matching erase block commands are not allowed, it will fail to recover.

If, for any reason, --noverify-all is used and flashrom erases too much
at the edge of a region, it will also have backed up too little of sur-
rounding flash contents.

If the connection is unreliable, flashrom might make wrong assumptions
if something fails. This is actually always true, but becomes much worse
when the expected erase-block size is wrong.

Nico