[coreboot] Lenovo N20p Chromebook

Aaron Durbin adurbin at chromium.org
Mon Sep 22 18:39:20 CEST 2014

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:14 AM, John Lewis <jlewis at johnlewis.ie> wrote:
> On 21/09/14 14:06, Aaron Durbin wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:44 AM, John Lewis <jlewis at johnlewis.ie> wrote:
>>> snip
>>>>>>>> I'm trying to flash the ROM externally now, but it's telling me it
>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>> disable block protection. It gets as far as trying to erase
>>>>>>>> 0x600000,
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> goes through all the erase functions, finally crapping out. Do you
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> I can work-around that?
>>>>>>> The write protect screw is removed, right? After that the flash's
>>>>>>> write protect register needs to be updated.  Do you know the status
>>>>>>> register values? Flashrom should be able to do that.
>>>>>> Yes, it is definitely removed - I didn't put it back in after the
>>>>>> initial
>>>>>> brick. It says the register value is 0x94 - I did also hook up the Bus
>>>>>> Pirate for use with statically linked ChromeOS Flashrom (as the
>>>>>> particular
>>>>>> version I have doesn't have Dediprog support) - I had an idea running
>>>>>> --wp-disable might help, but it didn't recognise the chip and said the
>>>>>> register was already 0x94 (paraphrasing). I am currently compiling a
>>>>>> newer
>>>>>> statically linked version of ChromeOS Flashrom using the SDK, in the
>>>>>> hope
>>>>>> that might be able to do the job. Am I barking up the wrong tree
>>>>>> though, or
>>>>>> is there something else I could do?
>>>>> You are in the right spot. The fact that it failed at 6MiB is very
>>>>> indicative of the SPI part write protection. There are, however, more
>>>>> than one status register. There should be 3 of them:
>>>>> Read Status Register-1 (05h), Status Register-2 (35h) & Status
>>>>> Register-3 (15h)
>>>>> Btw, I'm referencing W25Q64FW datasheet.
>>>>> -Aaron
>>>> Yeah, using --wp-status with Clapper's Flashrom tells me that the write
>>>> protect *is* enabled, after all. But I can't see where, apart from the
>>>> screw I took out right next to the battery, the write-protect screw
>>>> would be? And I'm confused as to why it let me write initially if the
>>>> write-protect wasn't enabled.
>>>> This is the output I get trying to run --wp-disable:
>>>> w25_set_srp0: old status: 0x94
>>>> w25_set_srp0: new status: 0x94
>>>> w25q_disable_writeprotect(): error=1.
>>>> No -i argument is specified, set ignore_fmap.
>>>> Setting SPI voltage to 0.000 V
>>>> restore_power_management: Re-enabling power management.
>>> I've sorted it out now - had to bridge pins 3,7 and 8 using a large
>>> paper-clip, as alluded to in the OSCON presentation, referenced by Barry
>>> Schultz. Never had to do that before, oddly.
>> Interesting. You had to hard pull WP# and HOLD#. I need to take a look
>> at that circuit. I wouldn't have expected you to do that either.
> I don't understand it obviously, but I thought the main point was to get
> voltage to the WP pin to disable the hard write-protect.

I looked at the schematics. There's a lot of complexity in that area
because of voltage differences. I'm not surprised you had to short WP#
to SPI VCC to make it work. I'm guessing this is most likely required
for all baytrail based ChromeOS devices.

> Anyway, back to our original problem - the ROM with the refcode section
> changed from type 50 to type 10, still doesn't give us anything. As an
> experiment, I tried extracting one of my own kernel payloads, then adding it
> back in unchanged as a raw file, and changing the type to 50 on my Falco,
> and that doesn't work either.
> Could we try turning the extracted refcode binary back into an elf? How
> would I go about that?

I'm told  firmware-clapper-5216.199.B is the correct firmware branch
to use. The other one is old and may not be working (this issue?).

I'd be curious to see if you can get anything from your image.
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/servo has the servo pin
definitions for the cable. You could get uarts from EC and the
baytrail part.

As for changing that thing back to ELF, it's definitely possible. Can
we try using the proper branch first? If not, the refcode is an
rmodule so you'll just need to take the relocation information and the
code to create a new ELF. We don't have a tool to do that right now,
but it wouldn't be too too hard.


More information about the coreboot mailing list