Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Mailing list and IRC split

Selon Uwe Hermann u...@hermann-uwe.de: On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:50:01PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: Although the list traffic has not yet reached linux-kernel levels, it is already too much to read in full. I hope splitting the lists will allow people to concentrate on their

[coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH] invalid local variable declaration

Hello all, To start teh day, a small patch for an invalid local variable... In C, local variable must be declared before any statment, and not, like in C++ in the middle of the function. Make good use of it. Regards, Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr

[coreboot] [flashrom] pb flashing St M26P16

Hello all, I'm facing some issues, with some flash ST M25P16. When using flashrom (623), after programming, some bits are not programmed correctly. Each time, the same bits are wrong, making the BIOS unusable. In the file attached, the diff between what should be seen and and is really

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom] pb flashing St M25P16

Sorry, wrong part ID in the title. The flash part is M25P16, not M26P16. Selon stephan.guill...@free.fr: Hello all, I'm facing some issues, with some flash ST M25P16. When using flashrom (623), after programming, some bits are not programmed correctly. Each time, the same bits are wrong,

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH] invalid local variable declaration

Selon Stefan Reinauer ste...@coresystems.de: stephan.guill...@free.fr wrote: Hello all, To start teh day, a small patch for an invalid local variable... In C, local variable must be declared before any statment, and not, like in C++ in the middle of the function. Thanks a lot

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH] invalid local variable declaration

Selon Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be: On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:51:21PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote: Hi, Luc, I agree we should set standards as low as possible, and try to make it easier for people to write good code, but.. On 23.06.2009 13:39 Uhr, Luc Verhaegen wrote: I

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom] pb flashing St M25P16

Really ? No one can help ? Selon stephan.guill...@free.fr: Hello all, I'm facing some issues, with some flash ST M25P16. When using flashrom (623), after programming, some bits are not programmed correctly. Each time, the same bits are wrong, making the BIOS unusable. In the file

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom] pb flashing St M25P16

Selon Myles Watson myle...@gmail.com: Note that I'm facing this on 3 boards. The 4th one is working properly. On each non working board, some bits are wrong, but they are not the same, on each board. My best guess would be a timing issue. Is there a way that you can lengthen the

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom] pb flashing St M25P16

Selon Myles Watson myle...@gmail.com: Note that I'm facing this on 3 boards. The 4th one is working properly. On each non working board, some bits are wrong, but they are not the same, on each board. My best guess would be a timing issue. Is there a way that you can

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom] pb flashing St M25P16

Selon Myles Watson myle...@gmail.com: Given that I would look at the actual flash routines that get used and see if there are timing parameters that you can play with. I checked the code, there is no timing... From what I saw, flashrom just waits for the status returned by the flash

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom] pb flashing St M25P16

Some news for this issue. It looks to be hardware, on some parts : We tried to increase or decrease the board temperature, and then, some non working flash work with a lower temperature... So, flashrom looks to be safe ;-) stephan.guill...@free.fr a écrit : Really ? No one can help ? Selon

[coreboot] [flashrom] Patch to factorize read_flash() use

Hello, A simple patch to use read_flash() when flash chip probe is probed. Unfortunatelly, I cannot test it... If anyone can do the job for me... Make good use of it ;-) Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom-factorize-read/trunk/flashrom.c

[coreboot] [flashrom] Missing free() in read_flash (just for the form)

Hello, Just a missing free() in read_flash(). Make good use of it ;-) Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom-free/trunk/flashrom.c === --- flashrom-free/trunk/flashrom.c

[coreboot] [flashrom][patch] enable/use flash chip read/erase return codes

Hello, A last patch for tonight, to use chips read/erase return codes. erase() is not fully modified, though. flash_read() is unchanged, as I also have a patch pending in this area. Make good use of it ;-) Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index

Re: [coreboot] flashrom Makefile improvements

Hi, Separate FDFLAGS and LIBS is a good idea. Adding CFLAGS in $(CC) -MM is also a good one. OK for me. Stephan. FENG Yu Ning a crit: Christian Ruppert wrote: I wrote a patch which includes some Makefile improvements so please review. Signed-off-by: Christian Ruppert

Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom: Handle one-byte SPI writes

Hello, This might work, but, if I can say, I don't like the idea of renaming the ich_spi_write to ich_spi_write_256. 1) ich_spi_write() looks to be the generic one, then, this one has the good name. 2) ich_spi_write() should already use something, stored in the relevant flashchips[] item, to

Re: [coreboot] GeoCities is closing down... backups?

Selon Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2...@gmx.net: Hi, there are quite some resources useful for coreboot which are hosted at GeoCities. Since GeoCities will close down later this year (no exact date known), I fear we will lose that material. One web site I'm thinking of is

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH] typo in Makefile

. @$(CC) $(CFLAGS) .test.c -o .test $(LDFLAGS) /dev/null Patch is below and in attachment. Make good use of it ;-) Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom-patch-Makefile/Makefile

[coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH] support for MX25L3235D

Hello, Below, a patch to allow MX25L3235D support, from the datasheet. From the datasheets, 3225 and 3237 are also supported. The patch is also available in attachment. Make good use of it ;-) Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom-support

[coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH] typo in Makefile

Hello, Found some typo in Makefile which was producing some strange behaviours while compiling pciutils rule. Patch is below and in attachment. Make good use of it ;-) Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom-patch-Makefile/Makefile

[coreboot] [flashrom]patch in Makefile

, initially. Patch is below and attached. Make good use of it. Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom-patch-Makefile/Makefile === --- flashrom-patch-Makefile/Makefile(révision 4171

[coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH] support for MX2512805D

Hello, Below, a patch to allow MX25L12805D support, from the datasheet. It is also available in attachment. Make good use of it ;-) Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom/flash.h

[coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH] support for MX251635D

Hello, Below, a patch to allow MX25L1635D support, as discussed on #coreboot. It is also available in attachment. Make good use of it ;-) Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom/flashchips.c

[coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH] MX25L1605 and 1635 accept Chip Erase opcodes 60 and C7

Hello, As seen in the specs these 2 chips accept CE (Chip Erase) opcodes 60 and C7. Below a patch to fix flashrom accordingly. Also available in attachment. Make good use of it. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom/flashchips.c

[coreboot] [flashrom][PATCH]Macronix MX25 chips accept Chip Erase opcodes 60 and C7

Hello After verification in datasheets, all MX25 accept the same opcodes 60 and C7 for Chip Erase. The patch is below, and in attachement. Make good use of it. Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: flashrom/flashchips.c

[coreboot] [flashrom]MX25L1605A and MX25L1605D

Hello Anyone can tell me how to make the difference between the 1605A and the 1605D ? From the datasheet, the D accept some more opcodes. Great, but, how to differenciate both ? I check the datasheets, but... see no differences in RDID or REMS. Stephan. -- coreboot mailing list:

[coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom patch easier board_pciid_enables parsing

Hello, Similarly to flashchips array, this patch intends to make the table board_pciid_enables more readable. Also in attachment. Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux mailto:stephan.guill...@free.fr Index: coreboot-v2/util/flashrom/board_enable.c

Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom: Use explicit read function

OK for me. I can take that into account in my partial read patch. Carl-Daniel Hailfinger a écrit : Flashrom assumes that the flash chip contents are available via mmap if no read function is defined. This special case is handled in lots of places all over the code. Remove the special case

Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom patch for partial flash read #2

After partial review, the following fixes are included : - return used without parentheses. I prefer parentheses, as it allows macros around. For instance, I oftenly use macros like FUNCTION_RETURN(xx) do dump the return code at debug time. Not the case here, so, () removed. - unsigned

Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom patch for partial flash read #2

+static int read_flash(struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, uint32_t offset, uint32_t length) +{ + int total_size = flash-total_size * 1024; total_size should be unsigned. Agreed, but found some inconsistencies for total_size : - size_t is used, like in

[coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom patch for partial flash read #2

too. Also in attachment for GMail users. Any comment is welcome. Stephan. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Index: flashrom/flash.h === --- flashrom/flash.h(révision 3789) +++ flashrom/flash.h(copie

Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom: sector-based flashing

From here, I can see 2 problems. 1. the flashchips structure will become even more difficult to read. 2. vaste of memory. What about a pointer to an eraseblock array ? The last element of the array could be zeroed to indicate the end of the array. Several chips could share the same eraseblock

[coreboot] flashrom patch for partial flash read

buffer size to total_size bytes. This allows exclude_start/end to be applied too. Any comment is welcome. Stephan. Also in attachment for GMail users. Signed-off-by: Stephan Guilloux mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Index: flashrom/flash.h

[coreboot] flashrom on EP80759 + Spansion S25FL016A

Hello Carldani, You were right about the flash : this board is equipped with a ST flash and not with a Spansion... Now, I check the modifications we made yesterday night in flashrom. With them, flashrom is now working fine : I can read, I can write the flash content. Erase not tested.