[flashrom] Gigabyte P55A-UD4 works.

[Björn Augustsson]

2011/5/18 Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at student.tuwien.ac.at>:
> On Fri, 13 May 2011 23:22:26 +0200
> Björn Augustsson <oggust at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just writing in to let you know that the Gigabyte P55A-UD4 seems to work fine.
>
> hello!

Hi!

> there are two revisions of your motherboard according to gigabyte.
> namely rev 1.0
> http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3239#sp
> and rev 2.0
> http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3436#sp
>
> the only difference visible on that pages is the ethernet controller
> and small layout changes. i dont think those differences matter for
> flashrom at all, but just for the record: which revision do you have?

I wasn't sure either, so I downloaded both, and it turns out they
have the same bios image.

But since you asked, I had another look. It's a bit hard to say.
The box says rev 1.0, but looking at the images, I think it's right.

* Mine has the "EuP Ready" text in the corner near the DIMM slots,
which only appears
  on the rev 2 picture.
* I do not have the additional text near the dolby logo on the rev 2 picture.
* The cap near the USB header (to the left of the dolby logo, at the
edge) is in the
  position in the rev 1 picture.
* The ethernet stuff looks more like the rev 1 pic. The "NEC" text is missing,
  but that cap behind the audio header is missing, like in the 1.0 pic.

Weird. Either way, like you said, hopefully it doesn't matter.

> you can probably tell from the images. the most significant difference
> is on the left border near the dolby logo.
>
>> Ideas?
> probably nothing to fear. can you tell us which
> addresses are different?

Hmm. OK, I ran both images through od, and diffed those.

I see four changed chunks:

0x0ff000 - 0x0ff04f (Block of all 0xff, replaced with data)
0x1ec000 - 0x1ee4ff (almost all 0xff replaced, also a "fffe 0000" pattern)
0x1eeff0 - 0x1ef65f (another block of all 0xff, replaced with data)
0x1feca0 - 0x1feca9 (just a couple bytes)

I'll put the bsdiff between the images on the paste site you mentioned below.

> when did you read out the other file: before
> or after rebooting?

I think it was after rebooting.
Anyway, I tried it now, (several reboots later), and the result is
the same as the image I read back then. (ie not quite matching the one I wrote)

> please dont post (binary) files containing (parts of) your bios
> (due to copyright problems for us). please you upload them to
> http://paste.flashrom.org/ instead.

OK, the bsdiff is there:

-  Your paste can be seen at http://paste.flashrom.org/view.php?id=579
-  Your upload can be seen at http://paste.flashrom.org/view.php?id=580

> we (or at least i) consider this board as supported, so no other action
> then answering the revision question is needed from our (my) side.

Cool, thanks!

> thanks for your report!

Thank you!

/August.
-- 
Wrong on most accounts.  const Foo *foo; and Foo const *foo; mean the same: foo
being a pointer to const Foo.  const Foo const *foo; would mean the same but is
illegal (double const).  You are confusing this with Foo * const foo; and const
Foo * const foo; respectively. -David Kastrup, comp.os.linux.development.system