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

[Ricardo Ribalda Delgado]

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!
> >