[flashrom] Test report for multiple SPI flash chips on serprog with UNTESTED status

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:21:07 +0800
Chi Zhang <zhangchi866 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 在 2013年4月2日 星期二 20:40:39，Stefan Tauner 写道：
> > On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:11:11 +0800
> > 
> > Chi Zhang <zhangchi866 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The programmer is my newly built serprog with STM32 MCU. Please refer to
> > > https://github.com/dword1511/serprog-stm32vcp .
> > 
> > Nice stuff :) What was the motivation for that project?
> > Should we add it to http://flashrom.org/Serprog ?
> 
> At first I built a serprog with ATMEGA8L. But that one was slow and requires a 
> UART to USB bridge and so some extra wirings. As I remember there was a STM32 
> USB virtual COM port example, I decided to build a serprog without a physical 
> UART and aim at high speed.

I see (the google translation of your blog is a bit hard to read ;). For
even higher speed one would need to implement something with more
"intelligence" in the micro controller like we described here:
http://www.flashrom.org/GSoC#Design_and_implementation_of_a_native_USB_flashing_protocol

> You can put it on the wiki page if you like, I will be very proud of it :)

Will do, thank you.

> > > AT26DF161A: http://paste.flashrom.org/view.php?id=1570
> > 
> > That one needs some further analysis:
> > "Some block protection in effect, disabling... Block protection could
> > not be disabled!"
> > 
> 
> Saw that too. But interestingly write and erase still work. Maybe because nWP 
> is pulled high?

The message was just cosmetically a problem. flashrom had the wrong
representation of the status register encoded. It thought there are
write protections active while that was just the status of the nWP pin.
It tried to force that low which obviously did not work, but continued
anyway. I don't know yet why my patch did not work. I will reply to
your other mails when I do...

> > Also, there exists a patch set that adds support for the AT45DB161D,
> > but we have not decided if we want to go with that implementation.
> > See http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3873/ etc.
> 
> AT45 have different pinout with 25 series. I will have to add some wirings.

Right. Sorry for not mentioning it.

> > The two sanyo chips are completely unsupported yet I think...
> 
> I found them on my hard disk PCB. No plan for testing them though. They are 
> still in use.

Ah ok. According to their datasheets they are licensed from SST but
use the Sanyo manufacturer ID. So adding support for them manually is
needed but it is probably not hard.

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner