Can you tell us more about your system's firmware?
=>What kind of information do you mean concretely?
Should the IMC be active and responsive?
=>I'm not sure what the consequence is in detail when the IMC is inactive. But I gues it doesn't need to be active.
Rudolf: Let's assume the IMC is set up but does not respond in time (btw I guess a longer timeout won't help?
=>Can you please tell me where I can increase this time?
Best regards Markus
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:50
Hello together, I'm very sorry...I didn't verified the output at the display and the logfile content. Yes, your absolutely right, the message "IMC MBOX: Timeout!" is printed after the line "EC MBOX is at 0x3e". And at the end there are 3 more lines:
"FATAL ERROR! Unhandled programmer parameters: amd_imc_force=yes Error: Programmer initialization failed."
Best regards Markus_T
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:24:47 +0200
Hello again, I used this source code http://download.flashrom.org/snapshots/flashrom-0.9.6.1-r1643.tar.bz2 and patched it with patch 3894 "patch<AMD---SP5100---take-SPI-ownership-1-2.patch". The patching and compiling was without errors.
The execution of flashrom with "flashrom -VVV -p internal:amd_imc_force=yes" resulted in following error message.
flashrom v0.9.6.1-r1643 on Linux 3.0.1pae (i686) flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org
flashrom was built with libpci 3.1.7, GCC 4.4.5, little endian Command line (3 args): flashrom -VVV -p internal:amd_imc_force=yes Calibrating delay loop... OS timer resolution is 1 usecs, 824M loops per second, 10 myus = 11 us, 100 myus = 100 us, 1000 myus = 1000 us, 10000 myus = 10008 us, 4 myus = 4 us, OK. Initializing internal programmer No coreboot table found. DMI string system-manufacturer: "To be filled by O.E.M." DMI string system-product-name: "To be filled by O.E.M." DMI string system-version: "To be filled by O.E.M." DMI string baseboard-manufacturer: "abc" DMI string baseboard-product-name: "123" DMI string baseboard-version: "1.1.0" DMI string chassis-type: "Desktop" Found chipset "AMD SB7x0/SB8x0/SB9x0" with PCI ID 1002:439d. Enabling flash write... EC SIO is at 0x6e EC MBOX is at 0x3e (Shutting down IMC failed!) FAILED!
Do you have an idea what the problem could be?
I have no idea what the underlying problem is, but can it be that you did only paste the output to stdout and not to stderr (which can happen if you redirect the output of flashrom with ">/some/logfile" instead of using the -o option or directing with ">/some/logfile 2>&1")?
I am asking because I am pretty sure that there is "IMC MBOX: Timeout!" in the original output (to stderr). And in that case it is clearly not an error introduced by me refinement of the patch, and I would like to continue/test/fix my current version (3979) on top of current HEAD (or at least r1680) instead of the original one, because we want to merge the new version eventually of course.
Can you tell us more about your system's firmware? Should the IMC be active and responsive?
Rudolf: Let's assume the IMC is set up but does not respond in time (btw I guess a longer timeout won't help? how did you choose the timeout value?), should we bail out like we do or presume that it is ok to write to flash? I guess it could make quite a lot of sense to be able to rewrite the IMC image in case the current image is broken (and hence does not respond to shutdown requests :) but this hopefully wont happen on end user systems. Also, note my comments in the refinement patch about IMCEnable and EcEnable. Do you have any opinion/knowledge about that? -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:59:28 +0200 "Trunzer Markus" Markus.Trunzer@kontron.com wrote:
Can you tell us more about your system's firmware?
=>What kind of information do you mean concretely?
Who build it and can you talk to them?
Should the IMC be active and responsive?
=>I'm not sure what the consequence is in detail when the IMC is inactive. But I gues it doesn't need to be active.
Oh, I was talking about the expectation you have about the state of the IMC assuming that you are somewhat involved in the development of the system (aren't you?). The IMC does not need to be active for a working system (AFAIK), but to me it seems like it is active but somewhat misconfigured. Let's see what Rudolf says about it. He know it way better than me.
Rudolf: Let's assume the IMC is set up but does not respond in time (btw I guess a longer timeout won't help?
=>Can you please tell me where I can increase this time?
In my version of the patch you need to increase the initial value of 'i' in mbox_wait_ack. Similar in Rudolf's version, but it counts up instead. The value is in milliseconds.
Hello, first I have to clarify who built the firmware.
I'm not really involved in the development of the system. I'm just responsible for the test design of the system.
I increased the mbox_wait_ack to 10 seconds but there are still the same errors. Do you know another way to disable the IMC?
Then I'm very curious about Rudolf's ideas.
Best regards Markus_T
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:59:28 +0200
Can you tell us more about your system's firmware?
=>What kind of information do you mean concretely?
Who build it and can you talk to them?
Should the IMC be active and responsive?
=>I'm not sure what the consequence is in detail when the IMC is inactive. But I gues it doesn't need to be active.
Oh, I was talking about the expectation you have about the state of the IMC assuming that you are somewhat involved in the development of the system (aren't you?). The IMC does not need to be active for a working system (AFAIK), but to me it seems like it is active but somewhat misconfigured. Let's see what Rudolf says about it. He know it way better than me.
Rudolf: Let's assume the IMC is set up but does not respond in time (btw I guess a longer timeout won't help?
=>Can you please tell me where I can increase this time?
In my version of the patch you need to increase the initial value of 'i' in mbox_wait_ack. Similar in Rudolf's version, but it counts up instead. The value is in milliseconds.
-- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
Then I'm very curious about Rudolf's ideas.
Hi
I only know that some firmwares dont support the sleep commands. As I have written in my first mail, please check if IMC is present in original firmware. Maybe IMC straps are just enabled and no IMC code gets executed, or the IMC crashed.
I will be AFK until start of the next week.
Thanks Rudolf
Best regards Markus_T
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:59:28 +0200
Can you tell us more about your system's firmware?
=>What kind of information do you mean concretely?
Who build it and can you talk to them?
Should the IMC be active and responsive?
=>I'm not sure what the consequence is in detail when the IMC is inactive. But I gues it doesn't need to be active.
Oh, I was talking about the expectation you have about the state of the IMC assuming that you are somewhat involved in the development of the system (aren't you?). The IMC does not need to be active for a working system (AFAIK), but to me it seems like it is active but somewhat misconfigured. Let's see what Rudolf says about it. He know it way better than me.
Rudolf: Let's assume the IMC is set up but does not respond in time (btw I guess a longer timeout won't help?
=>Can you please tell me where I can increase this time?
In my version of the patch you need to increase the initial value of 'i' in mbox_wait_ack. Similar in Rudolf's version, but it counts up instead. The value is in milliseconds.
-- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:13:41 +0200 Rudolf Marek r.marek@assembler.cz wrote:
Then I'm very curious about Rudolf's ideas.
Hi
I only know that some firmwares dont support the sleep commands. As I have written in my first mail, please check if IMC is present in original firmware. Maybe IMC straps are just enabled and no IMC code gets executed, or the IMC crashed.
I will be AFK until start of the next week.
Hi,
Markus did you find out if there is IMC firmware in the flash chip? Is the image available for download somewhere or can you provide it to us? We (and hence the mailing list) are not allowed to distribute the binary of course, but you can upload it to http://paste.flashrom.org/ if you are allowed to share it.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:03:57 +0200 Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at wrote:
Markus did you find out if there is IMC firmware in the flash chip? Is the image available for download somewhere or can you provide it to us? We (and hence the mailing list) are not allowed to distribute the binary of course, but you can upload it to http://paste.flashrom.org/ if you are allowed to share it.
In case you did not know, there is a fixed signature in the image, if it contains an IMC firmware: "_AMD_IMC_C".
-
Rudolf Marek -
Stefan Tauner -
Trunzer Markus