If the system has an SMSC LPC47N217N SuperIO, enter_conf_mode_ite() enters configuration mode, and then exit_conf_mode_ite() kills power to the serial UART.
I don't know if there is a proper way to detect what kind of SuperIO the system has, but probe_superio_ite() is unsafe in its current form.
Signed-off-by: Ed Swierk eswierk@aristanetworks.com
--- Index: flashrom-0.9.2-r1057/internal.c =================================================================== --- flashrom-0.9.2-r1057.orig/internal.c +++ flashrom-0.9.2-r1057/internal.c @@ -104,7 +104,10 @@ struct superio superio = {};
void probe_superio(void) { +#if 0 + /* ITE probe causes SMSC LPC47N217 to power off the serial UART! */ superio = probe_superio_ite(); +#endif #if 0 /* Winbond Super I/O code is not yet available. */ if (superio.vendor == SUPERIO_VENDOR_NONE)
Hi Ed,
On 23.06.2010 08:49, Ed Swierk wrote:
If the system has an SMSC LPC47N217N SuperIO, enter_conf_mode_ite() enters configuration mode, and then exit_conf_mode_ite() kills power to the serial UART.
I don't know if there is a proper way to detect what kind of SuperIO the system has, but probe_superio_ite() is unsafe in its current form.
This change breaks a few dozen Gigabyte boards with AMD 700 chipset or Nvidia MCP55 chipset or SiS 761 chipset (and boards from other vendors), and can't be applied as is. It also breaks the pending IT8705 autodetection patch which adds support for a huge number of boards from the beginning of the LPC era.
Index: flashrom-0.9.2-r1057/internal.c
--- flashrom-0.9.2-r1057.orig/internal.c +++ flashrom-0.9.2-r1057/internal.c @@ -104,7 +104,10 @@ struct superio superio = {};
void probe_superio(void) { +#if 0
- /* ITE probe causes SMSC LPC47N217 to power off the serial UART! */ superio = probe_superio_ite();
+#endif #if 0 /* Winbond Super I/O code is not yet available. */ if (superio.vendor == SUPERIO_VENDOR_NONE)
Due to the reasons stated above, this patch can't be applied, but there are two options which might help: 1. Blacklist ITE Super I/O probing on your board. This would mean we have to change the code flow to run chipset_flash_enable(); board_flash_enable(); probe_superio(); it87xx_probe_spi_flash(); instead of the current order probe_superio(); chipset_flash_enable(); it87xx_probe_spi_flash(); board_flash_enable();
2. Add probing support for your Super I/O. If we probe for the SMSC LPC47N217 before we probe for IT87*, the IT87* probing will never be executed because we get a match before, and the code is designed to bail out once the first Super I/O is detected.
Either option looks OK for me, but I personally prefer option 2 because it will save us the headache of having to individually blacklist every system with LPC47N217.
In theory, running superiotool should have the same effect as running current flashrom. Can you please check that?
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Am Mittwoch, den 23.06.2010, 10:30 +0200 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
Due to the reasons stated above, this patch can't be applied, but there are two options which might help:
- Blacklist ITE Super I/O probing on your board.
This would mean we have to change the code flow to run chipset_flash_enable(); board_flash_enable(); probe_superio(); it87xx_probe_spi_flash(); instead of the current order probe_superio(); chipset_flash_enable(); it87xx_probe_spi_flash(); board_flash_enable();
This breaks the intention of the generic superio code in patchwork. It assumes you can have a generic "superio_gpio_set" which is called from the board_enable function, which needs that probe_superio() is run before. I thus also support option 2 (snipped) that tries to check for the SMC chip and avoid the ITE probe in that case.
A third route would be (if possible, I didn't check datasheets) to write a exit_conf_mode_ite which still works on the ITE chip, and does nothing on the SMC chip.
Regards, Michael Karcher
Hi Ed,
I would like to get this issue fixed before the next flashrom release, but I didn't see any response from you yet.
On 23.06.2010 10:30, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 23.06.2010 08:49, Ed Swierk wrote:
If the system has an SMSC LPC47N217N SuperIO, enter_conf_mode_ite() enters configuration mode, and then exit_conf_mode_ite() kills power to the serial UART.
I don't know if there is a proper way to detect what kind of SuperIO the system has, but probe_superio_ite() is unsafe in its current form.
In theory, running superiotool should have the same effect as running current flashrom. Can you please check that?
If running superiotool has no bad side effects, I plan to just copy that code over to flashrom and be happy.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
[resending because the original mail to Ed bounced]
On 16.08.2010 18:15, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Hi Ed,
I would like to get this issue fixed before the next flashrom release, but I didn't see any response from you yet.
On 23.06.2010 10:30, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 23.06.2010 08:49, Ed Swierk wrote:
If the system has an SMSC LPC47N217N SuperIO, enter_conf_mode_ite() enters configuration mode, and then exit_conf_mode_ite() kills power to the serial UART.
I don't know if there is a proper way to detect what kind of SuperIO the system has, but probe_superio_ite() is unsafe in its current form.
In theory, running superiotool should have the same effect as running current flashrom. Can you please check that?
If running superiotool has no bad side effects, I plan to just copy that code over to flashrom and be happy.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On 16.08.2010 18:15, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Hi Ed,
I would like to get this issue fixed before the next flashrom release, but I didn't see any response from you yet.
On 23.06.2010 10:30, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 23.06.2010 08:49, Ed Swierk wrote:
If the system has an SMSC LPC47N217N SuperIO, enter_conf_mode_ite() enters configuration mode, and then exit_conf_mode_ite() kills power to the serial UART.
I don't know if there is a proper way to detect what kind of SuperIO the system has, but probe_superio_ite() is unsafe in its current form.
In theory, running superiotool should have the same effect as running current flashrom. Can you please check that?
If running superiotool has no bad side effects, I plan to just copy that code over to flashrom and be happy.
Sorry, I didn't get a chance to try out superiotool before I left my previous employer, and I no longer have access to the board with this SuperIO.
If you have a patch to flashrom that does the same thing as superiotool, I can ask my former colleagues to give it a try.
--Ed
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Ed Swierk -
Ed Swierk -
Michael Karcher