[flashrom] [PATCH] Real partial writes

[Idwer Vollering]

2010/10/29 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>

> On 26.10.2010 19:22, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > On 26.10.2010 16:27, Idwer Vollering wrote:
> >
> >> 2010/10/22 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Given that the version which addresses the review comments apparently
> is
> >>> buggy, I hereby propose to merge the earlier version which worked. It
> is
> >>> here again for your reference with some slight cosmetic fixes which
> >>> should not impact functionality.
> >>> Error recovery still needs work (see the FIXME comment). It will work
> in
> >>> most cases, but if a given erase command for a block only erased parts
> >>> of the block (partial write lock), the code will make incorrect
> >>> assumptions.
> >>>
> >>> If anyone feels adventurous, I would love to see logs on Intel/VIA
> >>> chipsets with SPI (preferably locked down chipsets or with r1193
> reverted).
> >>>
> >>> If you're going to review this, make sure you keep a stack of bananas
> >>> (quickly mobilized carbohydrates for your brain), a bucket of ice (to
> >>> prevent brain overheating) and a bottle of aspirin handy. If any code
> is
> >>> unclear, please tell me and I'll try to add comments to improve
> >>> readability.
> >>>
> >>> This code has been tested. Testing erase (and checking with a separate
> >>> readback that erase actually worked) and write (same test with separate
> >>> readback) would be highly appreciated. Verbose logs are even more
> >>> appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> I think the code is ready for merge if you trust write/erase to never
> >>> fail. The error cases still need to be tested. Should we reread the
> >>> whole chip if write/erase failed to make sure our current view of the
> >>> chip contents is not stale?
> >>>
> >>> This patch makes flashrom use real partial writes. If you write an
> image
> >>> full of 0xff, flashrom will erase and detect that no write is needed.
> If
> >>> you write an image which differs only in some parts from the current
> >>> flash contents, flashrom will detect that and not touch unchanged
> areas.
> >>>
> >>> Fix a long-standing bug in need_erase() for 256 byte granularity as
> well.
> >>>
> >>> Nice side benefit: Detailed progress printing.
> >>> S means skipped
> >>> E means erased
> >>> W means written
> >>>
> >>> Thanks to Andrew Morgan for testing countless iterations of this patch.
> >>> Thanks to Richard A. Smith for testing on Dediprog.
> >>> Thanks to David Hendricks for the review (will be addressed later).
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <
> c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> With your latest patch (http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/2160/)
> applied:
> >>
> >> $ sudo ./flashrom -p nicintel_spi -V -w nicintel_spi.rom -c M25P10.RES
> >> flashrom v0.9.3-r1215 on FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE (i386), built with libpci
> >> 3.1.7, GCC 4.2.1 20070719  [FreeBSD], little endian
> >> Calibrating delay loop... OK.
> >> Initializing nicintel_spi programmer
> >> Found "Intel 82541PI Gigabit Ethernet Controller" (8086:107c, BDF
> 01:03.0).
> >> Probing for ST M25P10.RES, 128 KB: probe_spi_res1: id 0x10
> >> Chip status register is 00
> >> Found chip "ST M25P10.RES" (128 KB, SPI) at physical address 0xfffe0000.
> >> Reading old flash chip contents...
> >> Erasing and writing flash chip... Looking at blockwise erase function
> 0...
> >> trying... 0x000000-0x007fff:W, 0x008000-0x00ffff:W, 0x010000-0x017fff:W,
> >> 0x018000-0x01ffff:S
> >> Done.
> >> Verifying flash... VERIFY FAILED at 0x00008000! Expected=0xc6,
> Read=0x15,
> >> failed byte count from 0x00000000-0x0001ffff: 0x8d75
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Crap. Could you please retest http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/2155/?
> >
> > If that one works, I am tempted to commit it, and send all other changes
> > as separate patches on top.
> >
>
> Idwer tested this patch together with patch 2155


No. That was 2160, like you asked me to test on IRC.


> from patchwork and it
> worked.
> http://paste.flashrom.org/view.php?id=138
>
> Regards,
> Carl-Daniel
>
> --
> http://www.hailfinger.org/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/attachments/20101029/1855ab66/attachment.html>