On Tuesday 06 November 2007 00:51, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 06.11.2007 00:40, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > On Monday 05 November 2007, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >> What issues remain for the board now that this has been checked in?
> >
> > [...]
> > * assumed write protect lines to the flash chips
>
> IIRC we can flash PLCC boards under LB just fine, the SPI variants need
> to set one bit and allocate a port range in the SuperIO. Once I know how
> to tell board types apart, I can post a patch to fix that issue
> automatically.
Nope, flash erase fails reliably for me. I suggest we call it SPI flashing vs.
LPC flashing for consistency's sake; there might be SPI chips in a PLCC
housing out there?
My original idea was to say that gigabyte has one flash image for all board
revisions, but SPI flashing alone will make them different, bit-wise.
> > * more possible issues due to GPIO and INT route programming...
> This would be a lot easier with proper documentation.
Amen, brother!
'night
Torsten
--
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios@linuxbios.org
http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
