[flashrom] flashrom ERASE FAILED

Rohit Vijapure dbnk83 at motorola.com
Mon Sep 12 20:45:01 CEST 2011


Hi Carl

Thanks for the reply. Stefans suggestion worked for me. Do you still think I
should recompile the flashrom utility with the hack that you suggested?

With regards

Rohit Vijapure
Motorola Mobility.
2450 Walsh Ave
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Ph: - 408 235 5720



On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> thanks for your report. I'll focus on the compilation issues you found.
> Stefan Tauner already answered the erase related question.
>
> Am 09.09.2011 22:10 schrieb Rohit Vijapure:
> > I am trying to mass update the BIOS on MB899 Intel ® CoreTM 2 Duo/CoreTM
> > Duo/ Solo 945GM Mini-ITX Motherboard. I did compile the flashrom by
> > following two modifications as I was getting errors for the global
> > declaration .
> >
> > *Compilation errors*
> > programmer.h:567: warning: declaration of 'programmer' shadows a global
> > declaration
>
> gcc bug. It complains about the parameter name in a function declaration
> in programmer.h:
> void register_spi_programmer(const struct spi_programmer *programmer);
> Will add a workaround (rename programmer to pgm here).
>
>
> > board_enable.c: In function 'nvidia_mcp_gpio_set':
> > board_enable.c:892: error: too few arguments to function 'pci_get_dev'
> >
> > *2. board_enable.c*
> >     dev = pci_get_dev(pacc, dev->domain, dev->bus, dev->dev, 1);
> > /*    dev = pci_get_dev(pacc, dev->bus, dev->dev, 1);*/
>
> We explicitly check if we need to use the variant with or without the
> domain parameter. This check for PCI_LIB_VERSION >= 0x020200 should work
> fine.
>
>
> > [root at ME2000 /tmp]$ flashrom -w he76.052008
> > flashrom v0.9.4-r1395 on Linux 2.6.18.6-2g2g (i686), built with libpci
> > 2.1.99-test8, GCC 4.0.2 20051125 (Red Hat 4.0.2-8), little endian
>
> And here's the source of the compilation problem: Your distribution
> ships a beta version of libpci/pciutils which uses the interface of
> libpci 2.2 but without the matching version definition. We could hack
> around that with an additional check #if defined(PCI_CAP_ID_HT), but
> that matches only 2.1.99-test6 and above which would fix your case but
> leave 2.1.99-test3 to 2.1.99-test5 unfixed. It's the best possible
> solution, though.
>
> Apparently Red Hat had forgotten the gcc 2.96 disaster and tried to
> repeat it with a beta libpci. Oh well.
>
> Regards,
> Carl-Daniel
>
> --
> http://www.hailfinger.org/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/attachments/20110912/e66334c4/attachment.html>


More information about the flashrom mailing list