Unable to access a supported mobo: P5GC-MX/1333

Hello,

I have a P5GC-MX/133 (Rev 305g). This model is listed as supported on the
website*, After building trunk from source, I invoked flashrom as shown,
but the tool indicates the board is not supported. Am I missing something?

# flashrom --programmer internal:mainboard=ASUS:P5GC-MX/1333
flashrom v0.9.7-r1850 on Linux 2.6.32-65-generic (i686)
flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org

Calibrating delay loop... OK.
Found chipset "Intel ICH7/ICH7R". Enabling flash write... OK.
No suitable board enable found for vendor="ASUS", model="P5GC-MX/1333".
Aborting to be safe.
Error: Programmer initialization failed.

Thanks!

-Jerrad

* Apparently per http://flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-June/003501.html

[Stefan Tauner]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:19:00 -0400
[e-mail] wrote:
> :mainboard=ASUS:P5GC-MX/1333

Hi,

there is no need for that parameter. Actually, it is the reason
flashrom aborts. :)

[Jerrad Pierce]

> there is no need for that parameter. Actually, it is the reason
> flashrom aborts. :)

I see. I tried that initially, but then I get the following warning,
which seems to conflict with the listing of the board as being supported,
so I thought maybe the tool needed me to be more specific

[snip]
Found chipset "Intel ICH7/ICH7R". Enabling flash write... OK.
Found Eon flash chip "EN25F40" (512 kB, SPI) mapped at physical address 0xfff80000.
===
This flash part has status UNTESTED for operations: READ ERASE WRITE
The test status of this chip may have been updated in the latest development
[snip]

Thanks for clarifying.

[Stefan Tauner]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:21:12 -0400
Jerrad Pierce  wrote:
> > there is no need for that parameter. Actually, it is the reason
> > flashrom aborts. :)
>
> I see. I tried that initially, but then I get the following warning,
> which seems to conflict with the listing of the board as being supported,
> so I thought maybe the tool needed me to be more specific
>
> [snip]
> Found chipset "Intel ICH7/ICH7R". Enabling flash write... OK.
> Found Eon flash chip "EN25F40" (512 kB, SPI) mapped at physical address 0xfff80000.
> ===
> This flash part has status UNTESTED for operations: READ ERASE WRITE
> The test status of this chip may have been updated in the latest development
> [snip]

Normally, if a board is reported to work, we get to see a log file
including the chip... and if that's not tagged as fully supported
either, then we add this too. In this case apparently we did not get
a log... but I would assume that it will just work fine.
Also, this is not really a warning... we expect untested chips to work
in general, but without such we would never get reports on them ;)

[Jerrad Pierce]

> Normally, if a board is reported to work, we get to see a log file
> including the chip... and if that's not tagged as fully supported
> either, then we add this too. In this case apparently we did not get
> a log... but I would assume that it will just work fine.
> Also, this is not really a warning... we expect untested chips to work
> in general, but without such we would never get reports on them ;)

Ahh, well, it tends to scare one off from trying. However, with your
reassurance I tried anyway and can provide a second confirmation that
this motherboard (P5GC-MX/1333) works with flashrom v0.9.7-r1850

Cheers!

[Stefan Tauner]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:23:02 -0400
Jerrad Pierce  wrote:
> > Normally, if a board is reported to work, we get to see a log file
> > including the chip... and if that's not tagged as fully supported
> > either, then we add this too. In this case apparently we did not get
> > a log... but I would assume that it will just work fine.
> > Also, this is not really a warning... we expect untested chips to work
> > in general, but without such we would never get reports on them ;)
>
> Ahh, well, it tends to scare one off from trying. However, with your
> reassurance I tried anyway and can provide a second confirmation that
> this motherboard (P5GC-MX/1333) works with flashrom v0.9.7-r1850

Sorry for the late reply... were you reading or writing the chip with
that board? I'd like to mark the flash chip as tested accordingly.
Thanks.

[Jerrad Pierce]

I both read the ROM for backup (but did not verify the saved ROM though),
and wrote an updated ROM.

[Stefan Tauner]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:42:50 -0500
Jerrad Pierce  wrote:
> I both read the ROM for backup (but did not verify the saved ROM though),
> and wrote an updated ROM.

Hello Jerrad,

thanks! I have marked the flash chip as fully tested and will commit
that later together with other small changes.