On 05.12.2007 19:04, Andreas B. Mundt wrote: >>> This has been changed in rev 2972. Buildrom has still the 'old' >>> version. Flashing works fine for me if irq 0xc9 = 0x0 is set. With irq >>> 0xc9 = 0x40 it fails. >>> >>> >> OK, is that a difference between board revisions, BIOS revisions or just >> a misinterpretation of some superiotool dump? >> >> I can see that your latest superiotool dump with the proprietary BIOS >> has irq 0xc9 = 0x40 set. I tried to mirror that. Now the interesting >> question is: Why does that setting not work for you? >> >> To track this down, I need: >> * superiotool dump of proprietary BIOS for board revisions 1.0, 1.1, >> 2.0, 2.x >> * the exact BIOS version of the proprietary BIOS. >> >> > > I double checked proprietary BIOS (F9), LB with 0xc9 = 0x40 and LB with > 0xc9 = 0x0. But all I said previously is still true for my board (rev 1.0): > > For proprietary BIOS: 0xc9 = 0x40 flashing ok. > For LB with : 0xc9 = 0x0 flashing ok. > For LB with : 0xc9 = 0x40 flashing/erase fails. >
Narf. This is getting less than pleasant. Probably some SIO config has to be changed as well. I had hoped to avoid that. Ping me in two weeks if no patch for SIO dumping has appeared till then. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
