2011/5/18 Stefan Tauner <[email protected]>: > On Fri, 13 May 2011 23:22:26 +0200 > Björn Augustsson <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
