Releasing 0.9.2?

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Hi,

given that the eraseblock conversion is complete, what do we want to
merge before 0.9.2?

Here's my personal merge list:
High priority:
- Laptop warning.
- DMI restructure (needed for laptop warning).
- Chip driver fixes in patchwork.
Medium priority:
- All unacked board support patches (do we want to mark those boards as
untested?)
- All chip driver patches.
Low priority:
- All other pending patchwork patches, unless they are rejected or have
unaddressed review points.

TODO list:
High priority:
- Check if the man page is up to date (mention all programmers, use
correct format for parameters, ...)
- Fix compilation on Idwer's machine the right way because it might be
broken in other setups as well.
- Write a high-level changelog similar to the 0.9.1 changelog (see wiki).
Medium priority:
- Provide a --test mode (destructive)
- Always read the chip before writing, and only issue the scary error
message if flash contents changed.

How fast do we have to release to meet various distribution cutoffs? I'm
especially thinking of Ubuntu which ships a semi-broken flashrom version
right now AFAICS.
If we have to release Right Now(tm), I am happy if we get the high
priority stuff merged/implemented.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

[Michael Karcher]

Am Freitag, den 26.02.2010, 08:47 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
> Here's my personal merge list:
> High priority:
> Laptop warning.
> DMI restructure (needed for laptop warning).

Is in.
> Chip driver fixes in patchwork.

No comment - I don't have any chip driver fixes pending.
> Medium priority:
> All unacked board support patches (do we want to mark those boards as
>
> untested?)

My board enables:

Abit IP35 Pro: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/843/
 - Board enable works, but we have one report that the BIOS backflashes
itself. No idea what happens.

Abit VT6X4: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/955/ depending on
http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/948/
 - Board enable works: http://coreboot.pastebin.com/f6fd7daa3
IMHO ready for commit. Review of the 948 appreciated.

HP Vectra VL420SFF: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/919/
 - Board enable works, but DMI identifier was not tested. Confirmation
for non-DMI is at http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/696/

Intel SE440BX-2: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/842/
 - Board enable does not work. GPO register on PIIX4 is for strange
reasons read-only, see
http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-February/002272.html

HP Vectra VL400: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/721/
 - Board enable works, I was unsure about match quality. But
http://pastebin.com/f6c509179 claims that both IDs I used for matching
are really VL400 specific.

Asus M2NBP-VM CSM: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/717/
 - Board enable works, only confirmation was on IRC. No response on
ping.

MSI MS7207: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/659/
 - Untested. User got impatient and used another way of flashing - no
response on ping.
> Always read the chip before writing, and only issue the scary error
>
> message if flash contents changed.

[x] seconded!

Improved suggestion: If flash contents changed, blindly write the old
image (without verifying during write), and if correct afterwards, also
don't bail out. This should help on partly write protected chips.

Regards,
  Michael Karcher

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 26.02.2010 11:34, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 26.02.2010, 08:47 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
> > Here's my personal merge list:
> > High priority:
> > Laptop warning.
> > DMI restructure (needed for laptop warning).
>
> Is in.

Great, thanks.
> > Chip driver fixes in patchwork.
>
> No comment - I don't have any chip driver fixes pending.
> > Medium priority:
> > All unacked board support patches (do we want to mark those boards as
> >
> > untested?)
>
> My board enables:
>
> Abit IP35 Pro: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/843/
> Board enable works, but we have one report that the BIOS backflashes
>
> itself. No idea what happens.

Maybe two BIOS chips, selectable with GPIO?
> Abit VT6X4: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/955/ depending on
> http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/948/
> Board enable works: http://coreboot.pastebin.com/f6fd7daa3
>
> IMHO ready for commit. Review of the 948 appreciated.

I don't have VIA datasheets, sorry.
> HP Vectra VL420SFF: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/919/
> Board enable works, but DMI identifier was not tested. Confirmation
>
> for non-DMI is at http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/696/
>
> Intel SE440BX-2: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/842/
> Board enable does not work. GPO register on PIIX4 is for strange
>
> reasons read-only, see
> http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-February/002272.html

Uh hm. No idea.
> HP Vectra VL400: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/721/
> Board enable works, I was unsure about match quality. But
>
> http://pastebin.com/f6c509179 claims that both IDs I used for matching
> are really VL400 specific.
>
> Asus M2NBP-VM CSM: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/717/
> Board enable works, only confirmation was on IRC. No response on
>
> ping.
>
> MSI MS7207: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/659/
> Untested. User got impatient and used another way of flashing - no
>
> response on ping.

I'd say we commit those which don't have an ack, but add a marker that
will enable board detection and output a message
"please specify -p internal:board=ok and notify [e-mail]"
instead of running the board enable. That should be safe and still get
us the reports we want.
> > Always read the chip before writing, and only issue the scary error
> >
> > message if flash contents changed.
>
> [x] seconded!
>
> Improved suggestion: If flash contents changed, blindly write the old
> image (without verifying during write), and if correct afterwards, also
> don't bail out. This should help on partly write protected chips.

Doesn't work with the current code because the current code has
unconditional erase at the start of write.
David Hendricks wanted to look into stripping the erase out of all write
functions and do it from generic code instead. With a few other patches,
that would give us partial write (and that's what we need to recover).

For 0.9.2 I'd be happy with "don't warn if not broken". IMHO
autorecovery is too tricky for 0.9.2.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

Releasing 0.9.2 - board enables - request for Acks.

[Michael Karcher]

Am Freitag, den 26.02.2010, 11:34 +0100 schrieb Michael Karcher:

One release goal was to have pending patches committed. Especially with
the board enables, I am needing reviews to commit them, or we soften the
rules for board enable commits even further.

The tested/not tested state is about
http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/988/ which could use a review too. I
know it's already bitrotted (doesn't apply anymore) after I committed
the VL400 board enable.
> Abit IP35 Pro: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/843/
> Board enable works, but we have one report that the BIOS backflashes
>
> itself. No idea what happens.

No two BIOS chips on board.
flashrom/lspci/superiotool: http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-January/001837.html
Ack: received privately after flashing succeeded, before reboot.
Plan: Commit in "not tested" state, using the Ack received in private
mail. I can bounce the Ack mail to the list if you like.
> Abit VT6X4: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/955/ depending on
> http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/948/
> Board enable works: http://coreboot.pastebin.com/f6fd7daa3
>
> IMHO ready for commit. Review of the 948 appreciated.

Uwe wanted to take a look at 948
flashrom/lspci/superiotool: http://coreboot.pastebin.com/f5f25f1cf
Ack: no formal ACK. The user doesn't like to have real name / email
address in the flashrom log.
Plan: Commit in "tested" state. Ack by some developer needed per signoff
procedure. Waiting for Uwe's Ack on 948.
> HP Vectra VL420SFF: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/919/
> Board enable works, but DMI identifier was not tested. Confirmation
>
> for non-DMI is at http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/696/

flashrom/lspci/superiotool: http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/flashrom/2009-December/001440.html
Ack: pinged user again. Last ping request got only to the flashrom list,
forgot to Cc: the user.
Plan: Wait some days for an Ack, commit in "tested" state.
> Intel SE440BX-2: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/842/
> Board enable does not work. GPO register on PIIX4 is for strange
>
> reasons read-only, see
> http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-February/002272.html

flashrom/lspci/superiotool: http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-January/001988.html
Ack: None, as the patch doesn't work.
Plan: Unsure, because "broken" is not an option, only tested/not tested.
> HP Vectra VL400: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/721/
> Board enable works, I was unsure about match quality. But
>
> http://pastebin.com/f6c509179 claims that both IDs I used for matching
> are really VL400 specific.

Already committed.
> Asus M2NBP-VM CSM: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/717/
> Board enable works, only confirmation was on IRC. No response on
>
> ping.

flashrom/lspci/superiotool: http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/flashrom/2009-December/001373.html
Ack: None, user unresponsive.
Plan: Commit in "tested" state. Ack by some developer needed per signoff
procedure.
> MSI MS7207: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/659/
> Untested. User got impatient and used another way of flashing - no
>
> response on ping.

flashrom/lspci/superiotool: http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/flashrom/2009-December/001301.html
Ack: None, user unresponsive
Plan: Commit in "not tested" state. Ack by some developer needed per
signoff procedure.

Thanks in advance for any reviews.

Regards,
  Michael Karcher

Releasing 0.9.2 - board enables - request for Acks.

[Sean Nelson]

I've read through all of the links and I didn't find any problems in any 
of them.
You are free to copy my ack for any of the listed patches.

Acked-by: Sean Nelson

Releasing 0.9.2 - board enables - request for Acks.

[Michael Karcher]

Am Sonntag, den 28.02.2010, 00:16 +0100 schrieb Michael Karcher:

Board enable backlog is going down rapidly!
Thanks to Sean Nelson for the review/Ack.
> > Abit IP35 Pro: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/843/
> > Board enable works, but we have one report that the BIOS backflashes
> >
> > itself. No idea what happens.
>
> No two BIOS chips on board.
> flashrom/lspci/superiotool: http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-January/001837.html

Committed in r920
> > Abit VT6X4: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/955/ depending on
> > http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/948/
>
> Uwe wanted to take a look at 948

Still waiting for the review to the base patch (VIA GPIO
generalization). Can submit a rebased patch if that helps. Sean's
general Ack applies to the board enable patch.
> > HP Vectra VL420SFF: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/919/

Committed in r923
> > Intel SE440BX-2: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/842/
> > Board enable does not work. GPO register on PIIX4 is for strange
> >
> > reasons read-only, see
> > http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-February/002272.html
>
> flashrom/lspci/superiotool: http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-January/001988.html
> Ack: None, as the patch doesn't work.
> Plan: Unsure, because "broken" is not an option, only tested/not tested.

Plan: Postpone past 0.9.2, probably drop.
> > HP Vectra VL400: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/721/
>
> Already committed.

Committed in r918
> > Asus M2NBP-VM CSM: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/717/

Committed in r924
> > MSI MS7207: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/659/
>
> Plan: Commit in "not tested" state. Ack by some developer needed per
> signoff procedure.

Committed in r925

Regards,
  Michael Karcher

[Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
 wrote:
> How fast do we have to release to meet various distribution cutoffs? I'm
> especially thinking of Ubuntu which ships a semi-broken flashrom version
> right now AFAICS.
> If we have to release Right Now(tm), I am happy if we get the high
> priority stuff merged/implemented.

Well, at least for Ubuntu I can say, that the "DebianImportFreeze" is
over. So if you want to have a more recent version in Ubuntu Lucid,
you'll have to file a bug report on Launchpad with the remark that an
updated version in Ubuntu is highly recommended since the old version
is buggy. The Lucid schedule for Lucid can be found here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LucidReleaseSchedule.

Since Debian has feature freeze for Squeeze not before June, chances
are very high that a version 0.9.2 will make it in time.

I have no idea about Fedora, but I think the freeze for F13 is
somewhere in early March, when the first beta is released.

Adrian

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Hi,

On 26.02.2010 11:40, Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Well, at least for Ubuntu I can say, that the "DebianImportFreeze" is
> over. So if you want to have a more recent version in Ubuntu Lucid,
> you'll have to file a bug report on Launchpad with the remark that an
> updated version in Ubuntu is highly recommended since the old version
> is buggy.

Ouch. OK, we can rush a 0.9.2 release and hope we get it in through the
exception process. Our Ubuntu package is at r873, so an update might be
feasible. Right now we're merging bugfixes only, so there is a
reasonable chance we have a convincing case.
> I have no idea about Fedora, but I think the freeze for F13 is
> somewhere in early March, when the first beta is released.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/13/Schedule says Feature Freeze
was 2010-02-09. Exceptions apply. Our Fedora package is at r893, so an
update might be feasible. Same rationale as with Ubuntu.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel