On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:51:00AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > Best case it is merely pointless to repeat a probe sequence.
> > Worst case it causes system instability, as we saw with the AMIC A49LF040A.
>
> This problem is not fixed by this patch.
No, but it is one step closer to we
Author: stuge
Date: 2008-06-24 06:17:14 +0200 (Tue, 24 Jun 2008)
New Revision: 3388
Modified:
trunk/util/flashrom/flashchips.c
Log:
flashrom: Test status OK for Macronix MX25L8005 PROBE READ ERASE WRITE
Per test report from Andrew Paprocki. Thanks Andrew!
Signed-off-by: Peter Stuge <[EMAIL PR
On 24.06.2008 04:17, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Please see attached fr.cacheprobe_goto.patch.
>
> For those who fiercly advocate against goto; please compare
> fr.cacheprobe_goto.patch (which I propose to commit) with the mess in
> fr.cacheprobe_if.patch (which is not signed off and only included for
> r
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:17:47AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> fr.cacheprobe_if.patch (which is not signed off and only included
> for reference)
read = 1; in _if.patch isn't in the right place in every file, it's a
quick hack to prove a point.
//Peter
--
coreboot mailing list
coreboot@coreboo
Please see attached fr.cacheprobe_goto.patch.
For those who fiercly advocate against goto; please compare
fr.cacheprobe_goto.patch (which I propose to commit) with the mess in
fr.cacheprobe_if.patch (which is not signed off and only included for
reference) - goto ftw!
Timing:
flashrom r3386: 1.0
Author: stuge
Date: 2008-06-24 04:09:09 +0200 (Tue, 24 Jun 2008)
New Revision: 3387
Modified:
trunk/util/flashrom/jedec.c
Log:
flashrom: Increase delay in probe_jedec() after Product ID Entry to 10ms
We should follow data sheet timing, even if chips have been tested to answer
faster in the fie
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:20:10PM -0400, Ward Vandewege wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Stuge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Acked-by: Ward Vandewege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks! r3386
--
coreboot mailing list
coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Author: stuge
Date: 2008-06-24 03:22:03 +0200 (Tue, 24 Jun 2008)
New Revision: 3386
Modified:
trunk/util/flashrom/spi.c
Log:
flashrom: Slight restructure of SPI probe_ functions
Preparation for a probe optimization patch. This patch does not change any
functionality. spi_probe_rdid was tested
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 07:10:45AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Patch attached.
>
>
> //Peter
>
>
> !DSPAM:485c8dbe118861804284693!
> flashrom: Slight restructure of SPI probe_ functions
>
> Preparation for a probe optimization patch to come. This patch does not change
> functionality. spi_pro
> > Ken Fuchs wrote:
> >> 8) U-Boot now has architecture specific git repositories for
> >> active development available via http protocol that passes
> >> through most firewalls transparently. coreboot has a
> >> single SVN repository that seems to be accessible only
> >> via the svn pro
This is the same patch I posted earlier which adds legacybios to
buildrom. It has some options hardcoded in hardcode.diff because it
seems like the easiest way to keep the configuration in one place.
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks,
Myles
Index: config/platforms/qemu.conf
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Kevin O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:26:45PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>> Please, before we get this into buildrom, let's get it straight first.
>> Zhang Rui is working on integration of LegacyBIOS for all purposes, not
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:26:45PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Please, before we get this into buildrom, let's get it straight first.
> Zhang Rui is working on integration of LegacyBIOS for all purposes, not
> just int19 booting. It will replace a lot of code in current coreboot.
> W
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:54:22PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >>> Thanks for testing this! I confirmed correct functionality also
> >>> on ALIX 3c3.
> >>
> >> 2c3 or 3c3?
> >
> > 3c3, I don't have a 2c3. I think that's Ward's board.
>
> Great! So we support another one of the alix boar
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Another problem with LinuxBIOS and now with coreboot
> >>> is all the mainboards I tried to build or the even
> >>> the payloads would never compile without some serious
> >>> errors. Hopef
On 23.06.2008 22:42, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 08:29:03PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>
>> On 22.06.2008 03:55, Peter Stuge wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for testing this! I confirmed correct functionality also on
>>> ALIX 3c3.
>>>
>> 2c3 or 3c3?
>>
>
> 3c3, I
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 08:29:03PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 22.06.2008 03:55, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Thanks for testing this! I confirmed correct functionality also on
> > ALIX 3c3.
>
> 2c3 or 3c3?
3c3, I don't have a 2c3. I think that's Ward's board.
//Peter
--
coreboot mail
On 22.06.2008 03:55, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Thanks for testing this! I confirmed correct functionality also on
> ALIX 3c3.
>
2c3 or 3c3?
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
--
coreboot mailing list
coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
> On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 13:56 +0100, Tiago Marques wrote:
> > Anyone has any idea of how much are the costs for using
> > Pheonix or AMI's BIOS?
Cristi Magherusan wrote:
> A few dollars per unit, i guess. I think their strong point
> is that they
> offer support for them and make them work on
Ok, I get your point, but the Iwlwifi is quite open IMHO. I don't
really trust Intel, as they may pull the documentation for future
products but take a look at this:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=984&num=1
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=850&num=1
They seem
I'm doing:
K8M890/VT8237S
I have following datasheets under NDA:
VT8237R NDA
VT8237S NDA
VT8237A NDA
K8T890CE NDA
K8T890CF NDA
K8M890 NDA
Rudolf
--
coreboot mailing list
coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:50 AM, bari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there anyway we can try keep track of what everyone may be doing as
> far as ports of coreboot to new boards or chipsets as well as utils?
>
> I understand that sometimes projects are under contract and need to be
> kept quiet u
Is there anyway we can try keep track of what everyone may be doing as
far as ports of coreboot to new boards or chipsets as well as utils?
I understand that sometimes projects are under contract and need to be
kept quiet until after it's completed and released. But for others, it
is not a prob
> From: Stefan Reinauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jordan Crouse wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Does
> > it build seperately from coreboot or not?
> Not anymore after GSoC is done.
I'm interested in more than one line here. Why would LegacyBIOS b
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:36 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I sent a log of filo-0.5 compilation issues nearly two weeks
> ago as detailed in the following three URIs:
>
> http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2008-June/035647.html
> http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2008-June/03
On 23/06/08 18:41 +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Jordan Crouse wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Does
> > it build seperately from coreboot or not?
> Not anymore after GSoC is done.
I'm just trying to get as many people exposed to it as possible.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Another problem with LinuxBIOS and now with coreboot
is all the mainboards I tried to build or the even
the payloads would never compile without some serious
errors. Hopefully, a validated coreboot Live C
Jordan Crouse wrote:
I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Does
it build seperately from coreboot or not?
Not anymore after GSoC is done.
Thanks,
Stefan
--
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 766
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Another problem with LinuxBIOS and now with coreboot
> > is all the mainboards I tried to build or the even
> > the payloads would never compile without some serious
> > errors. Hopefully, a validated coreboot Live CD
> > would
On 23/06/08 18:26 +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > On 23/06/08 10:14 -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> >
> You have succesfully launched LegacyBIOS. However, the vga rom was
> not found. Make sure you're running with the latest vgabios. Also,
> you probably h
Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 23/06/08 10:14 -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
You have succesfully launched LegacyBIOS. However, the vga rom was
not found. Make sure you're running with the latest vgabios. Also,
you probably haven't specified a floppy, hard drive, or cdrom to boot
from.
We s
On 23/06/08 10:14 -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > You have succesfully launched LegacyBIOS. However, the vga rom was
> > > not found. Make sure you're running with the latest vgabios. Also,
> > > you probably haven't specified a floppy, hard drive, or cdrom to boot
> > > from.
> >
> > We shoul
> > You have succesfully launched LegacyBIOS. However, the vga rom was
> > not found. Make sure you're running with the latest vgabios. Also,
> > you probably haven't specified a floppy, hard drive, or cdrom to boot
> > from.
>
> We should discuss what needs to be done to bring this goodness to
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:29:30AM -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > The patch is only relevant with SATA PCI devices before PATA PCI
> > devices when one wants to boot from PATA.
>
> Which is pretty much every motherboard made after 2006.. :)
m57sli has PATA first, but anyway I guess not too many
On 23/06/08 17:18 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:16:00AM -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > > Thanks for testing this! I confirmed correct functionality also on
> > > ALIX 3c3.
> > >
> > > FILO r49
> >
> > Is it still too early to bump buildrom to the new revision?
>
> Go ah
Author: jcrouse
Date: 2008-06-23 17:28:22 +0200 (Mon, 23 Jun 2008)
New Revision: 207
Modified:
buildrom-devel/packages/filo/filo.mk
buildrom-devel/packages/filo/patches/make.patch
Log:
buildrom: move FILO to r49
New patch to filo does a better job of groking sata drivers, moving
to new rev
Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 22/06/08 03:55 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 02:24:16PM -0500, bari wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to be fine on any combination with the vt8237r.
>>>
>>> Post-acked or is it acked-again?
>>>
>>> Acked: Bari Ari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>> On Sa
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:16:00AM -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > Thanks for testing this! I confirmed correct functionality also on
> > ALIX 3c3.
> >
> > FILO r49
>
> Is it still too early to bump buildrom to the new revision?
Go ahead. If there's a problem we can fix it.
The patch is only re
On 22/06/08 03:55 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 02:24:16PM -0500, bari wrote:
> > Seems to be fine on any combination with the vt8237r.
> >
> > Post-acked or is it acked-again?
> >
> > Acked: Bari Ari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 08:17:10PM -0400, Kevin O
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 13:56 +0100, Tiago Marques wrote:
> I've seen my fair share of open-source adoption, or not. As such,
> seeing the recent developments with open-source drivers in the Intel
> camp, I can say they are pretty happy with the result, everyone is.
>From my experience, Intel only c
I've seen my fair share of open-source adoption, or not. As such,
seeing the recent developments with open-source drivers in the Intel
camp, I can say they are pretty happy with the result, everyone is.
Has it already been attempted to contact chipset manufacturers to
release information without N
41 matches
Mail list logo
