Re: GA-6BXC - first try.

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:39:46PM -0600, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> I'm guessing the write enable did not happen.
> 
> you can'd ID flash without write cycles working.

How do I find out whether it happened and how can I fix it if it didn't?

Attached is the output of ./flashrom -V. It's the same for both the
AM2* and W49* chips. I had no luck with flash_rom from V1, either.
The output of that is attached, too.

Cheers, Uwe.
--

-- 
Uwe Hermann 
http://www.hermann-uwe.de
http://www.it-services-uh.de  | http://www.crazy-hacks.org 
http://www.holsham-traders.de | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org

Calibrating delay loop... Setting up microsecond timing loop
128M loops per second
ok
No LinuxBIOS table found.
Trying Am29F040B, 512 KB
probe_29f040b: id1 0xff, id2 0xff
Trying Am29F016D, 2048 KB
probe_29f040b: id1 0xff, id2 0xff
Trying At29C040A, 512 KB

Intel Asks for Opinions on EFI, BIOS/Firmware in a Survey

Intel has a BIOS survey at:  http://developer.intel.com/sites/developer/

Take the BIOS/Firmware Survey. Give us your opinions on BIOS/Firmware 
<http://poll.onsurvey.net/istu/61030C1/dnc.asp>

Here's a way to send a message to Intel about what BIOS developers think 
of EFI.

--

-- 
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios <at> linuxbios.org
http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

Re: GA-6BXC - first try.

* Uwe Hermann <uwe <at> hermann-uwe.de> [060801 01:36]:
> > you can'd ID flash without write cycles working.
> 
> How do I find out whether it happened and how can I fix it if it didn't?

They don't work. You read back ff all the time.

> Attached is the output of ./flashrom -V. It's the same for both the
> AM2* and W49* chips. I had no luck with flash_rom from V1, either.
> The output of that is attached, too.

I assume it doesnt even try to enable write cycles. This should be
warned in flashrom with an appropriate message to fix it.

ie on Epia it would say:
Enabling flash write on VT8235...OK

Can you send around an lspci -n ?

-- 
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
      Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: info <at> coresystems.de  • http://www.coresystems.de/

--

-- 
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios <at> linuxbios.org
http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

Re: Winbond W39V040BPZ support in flash_rom?

Applied.

* Carl-Daniel U. Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 <at> gmx.net> [060731 16:45]:
> With the following (whitespace-damaged) patch
> 
> Index: flash.h
> ===================================================================
> --- flash.h     (Revision 2350)
> +++ flash.h     (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@
>  #define W_29C011          0xC1 /* Winbond w29c011 device code */
>  #define W_29C020C         0x45 /* Winbond w29c020c device code */
>  #define W_39V040A         0x3D /* Winbond w39v040a device code */
> +#define W_39V040B         0x54 /* Winbond w39v040b device code */
>  #define W_49F002U         0x0B /* Winbond w49F002u device code */
>  #define W_49V002A         0xB0  /* Winbond W49V002A device code */
>  #define W_49V002FA        0x32  /* Winbond W49V002FA device code */
> Index: flash_enable.c
> ===================================================================
> --- flash_enable.c      (Revision 2350)
> +++ flash_enable.c      (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -396,6 +396,7 @@
>         {0x1022, 0x7468, "AMD8111", enable_flash_amd8111},
>         // this fallthrough looks broken.
>          {0x10de, 0x0050, "NVIDIA CK804", enable_flash_ck804}, // LPC
> +        {0x10de, 0x0261, "NVIDIA C51", enable_flash_ck804},
>          {0x10de, 0x0051, "NVIDIA CK804", enable_flash_ck804}, // Pro
>          {0x10de, 0x00d3, "NVIDIA CK804", enable_flash_ck804}, // Slave, should not be here, to fix known bug for A01.
>         {0x1002, 0x4377, "ATI SB400", enable_flash_sb400}, // ATI Technologies Inc IXP SB400 PCI-ISA Bridge
(rev 80)

PATCH: flashrom documentation fixes.

Hi,

here's a small patch which fixes minor issues in the flashrom docs:

 * Made the README, manpage, and ./flashrom -h output the same things
 * Added some missing options to the "usage:" one-liner
 * Aligned spaces in ./flashrom -h output
 * Added explicit license to the manpage (GPL).

HTH, Uwe.
-- 
Uwe Hermann 
http://www.hermann-uwe.de
http://www.it-services-uh.de  | http://www.crazy-hacks.org 
http://www.holsham-traders.de | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org

Index: flash_rom.c
===================================================================
--- flash_rom.c	(revision 2349)
+++ flash_rom.c	(working copy)
@@ -145,22 +145,24 @@

 void usage(const char *name)
 {
-	printf("usage: %s [-rwvE] [-V] [-c chipname] [-s exclude_start] [-e exclude_end] [file]\n", name);
-	printf("   -r | --read:   read flash and save into file\n"
-	       "   -w | --write:  write file into flash (default when file is specified)\n"
-	       "   -v | --verify: verify flash against file\n"
-	       "   -E | --erase: Erase flash device\n"

Re: GA-6BXC - first try.

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:41:51AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> They don't work. You read back ff all the time.

Yes, that's what I was guessing. It should return the vendor
and device ID (0xDA, 0x0B), correct?

Do the access times matter here? I have a W49F002U-12B, i.e. 120ns, according
to the datasheet.

 
> > Attached is the output of ./flashrom -V. It's the same for both the
> > AM2* and W49* chips. I had no luck with flash_rom from V1, either.
> > The output of that is attached, too.
>  
> I assume it doesnt even try to enable write cycles. This should be
> warned in flashrom with an appropriate message to fix it.
> 
> ie on Epia it would say:
> Enabling flash write on VT8235...OK

I haven't seen such a message here.

 
> Can you send around an lspci -n ?

Sure.

00:00.0 0600: 8086:7190 (rev 03)

LinuxBIOS r2354 build changes

Dear LinuxBIOS readers!

This is the automated build check service of LinuxBIOS.

The developer "stepan" checked in revision 2354 to
the LinuxBIOS source repository and caused the following 
changes:

Change Log:
Add support for SST39SF040 and SST39SF010Aapply C.-D. Hailfinger's patch for Winbond part (untested)

Build Log:
 Compilation of artecgroup:dbe61 is still broken.

If something broke during this checkin please be a pain 
in stepan's neck until the issue is fixed.

If this issue is not fixed within 24h the revision will 
be backed out.

   Yours truely,
     LinuxBIOS automatic build system

--

-- 
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios <at> linuxbios.org
http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

Re: GA-6BXC - first try.

Uwe Hermann wrote:

> How do I find out whether it happened and how can I fix it if it didn't?

you know it did not, but the fact that every single id1 and id2 is 0xff 
is a sign that something is really wrong.

You're going to have to do some more digging 

ron

--

-- 
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios <at> linuxbios.org
http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

Re: Intel Asks for Opinions on EFI, BIOS/Firmware in a Survey

Bari Ari wrote:
> Intel has a BIOS survey at:  http://developer.intel.com/sites/developer/
> 
> Take the BIOS/Firmware Survey. Give us your opinions on BIOS/Firmware 
> <http://poll.onsurvey.net/istu/61030C1/dnc.asp>
> 
> Here's a way to send a message to Intel about what BIOS developers think 
> of EFI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

I love advertisements concealed as polls:

Are you aware the industry is in the midst of moving from legacy BIOS to 
EFI/UEFI?

and there's no selections for linuxbios. What a joke.

It gets better:
"
EFI/UEFI:The EFI specification defines a new model for the interface 
between operating systems and platform firmware. The interface consists 
of data tables that contain platform-related information, plus boot and 
runtime service calls that are available to the operating system and its 
loader. Together, these provide a standard environment for booting an 
operating system and running pre-boot applications."

Re: GA-6BXC - first try.

* Uwe Hermann <uwe <at> hermann-uwe.de> [060801 01:57]:
> Yes, that's what I was guessing. It should return the vendor
> and device ID (0xDA, 0x0B), correct?

Yes, exactly.

> Do the access times matter here? I have a W49F002U-12B, i.e. 120ns, according
> to the datasheet.

If you replace a part, it should not be slower than the original one,
but I never saw problems due to access times, realy.

> > ie on Epia it would say:
> > Enabling flash write on VT8235...OK
> 
> I haven't seen such a message here.
> 
>  
> > Can you send around an lspci -n ?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 00:00.0 0600: 8086:7190 (rev 03)
> 00:01.0 0604: 8086:7191 (rev 03)
> 00:07.0 0601: 8086:7110 (rev 02)
> 00:07.1 0101: 8086:7111 (rev 01)
> 00:07.2 0c03: 8086:7112 (rev 01)
> 00:07.3 0680: 8086:7113 (rev 02)
> 01:00.0 0300: 1039:6326 (rev 0b)