Since the Dediprog can work now, if I just want to use flashrom as a programmer interface, I may erase the host BIOS accidently. I think if the flashrom is built without the self-programming feature by some easy settings, I don't have to worry about it.
Is it reasonable?
Zheng
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:20:30 +0800, "Bao, Zheng" Zheng.Bao@amd.com wrote:
Since the Dediprog can work now, if I just want to use flashrom as a programmer interface, I may erase the host BIOS accidently. I think if the flashrom is built without the self-programming feature by some easy settings, I don't have to worry about it.
Is it reasonable?
As long as you add the external programmer flag to your flashrom command there is no need to worry. If your that worried about it just make a quick shell script that only calls flashrom with the external programmer command...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:20:30 +0800 "Bao, Zheng" Zheng.Bao@amd.com wrote:
Since the Dediprog can work now, if I just want to use flashrom as a programmer interface, I may erase the host BIOS accidently. I think if the flashrom is built without the self-programming feature by some easy settings, I don't have to worry about it.
maybe i am missing something, but would setting CONFIG_INTERNAL to "no" in the makefile achieve what you are looking for?
if we continue to support more and more non-internal devices it might even be a good idea to change the default behavior: if the internal interface is not explicitly named as parameter on the cli, warn and ask the user if he really wants to flash the current motherboard. what do others think about this?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:20:30 +0800 "Bao, Zheng" Zheng.Bao@amd.com wrote:
Since the Dediprog can work now, if I just want to use flashrom as a programmer interface, I may erase the host BIOS accidently. I think if the flashrom is built without the self-programming feature by some easy settings, I don't have to worry about it.
maybe i am missing something, but would setting CONFIG_INTERNAL to "no" in the makefile achieve what you are looking for?
if we continue to support more and more non-internal devices it might even be a good idea to change the default behavior: if the internal interface is not explicitly named as parameter on the cli, warn and ask the user if he really wants to flash the current motherboard. what do others think about this?
Maybe just use an alias or script for non-internal devices. It would always set the remote device flag correctly. This could be easily added in the flashrom make install or to a flashrom package. Call it remote-flashrom, dedi-flashrom, or some such name.
Marc
-
Bao, Zheng -
Joseph Smith -
Marc Jones -
Stefan Tauner