flashrom in chroot can not longer flash correctly |
|||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionI updated my chroot today and then spent a whole bunch of time tracking down what I thought was a firmware problem. It wasn't. It was a flashrom problem. Confirmed that running without "--noverify" showed that flashrom was reporting problems, like: Verifying flash... VERIFY FAILED at 0x00001800! Expected=0x00, Read=0xff, failed byte count from 0x00000000-0x007fffff: 0x11e48 --- Problems appear to be with: commit 9816fc84a2f33c580b603266268c14d8871c1623 Author: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at> AuthorDate: Fri Aug 12 15:47:49 2016 -0700 Commit: chrome-bot <chrome-bot@chromium.org> CommitDate: Mon Aug 29 03:02:38 2016 -0700 Warnings for one-time programmable (OTP) memory Corresponds to r1493 from upstream. Commit log from upstream: Some flash chips contain OTP memory that we cannot read or write (yet). This prohibits us from cloning them, hence warn the user if we detect it. Not all variations of the tagged chips contain OTP memory. They are often only enabled on request or have there own ordering numbers. There is usually no way to distinguish them. Because this is a supposedly seldomly used feature the warning is shown in with dbg verbosity. The manpage is extended to describe the backgrounds a bit. This patch is based on the idea and code of Daniel Lenski. BUG=chromium:478356 BRANCH=none TEST=needs testing Change-Id: Id6e7d1b8409e02b59aa451448490badd09e25200 Signed-off-by: Souvik Ghosh <souvikghosh@google.com> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/368880 Commit-Ready: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> --- Reverting that CL fixes me.
,
Aug 30 2016
Seeing as how that patch basically just added debug prints I'd be pretty impressed if it were at fault. I'll take a closer look once I get in tomorrow. There may be something overlooked in one of the other patches brought in by Souvik during his internship.
,
Aug 30 2016
A closer look into the code reveals that FEATURE_ERASE_TO_ZERO and FEATURE_OTP have the same bit value.
,
Aug 30 2016
Ah, yep, that makes perfect sense. FEATURE_ERASE_TO_ZERO was introduced in the chromium branch and FEATURE_OTP was introduced in upstream at different times. I whipped up a patch to fix the issue so we don't need to revert the original patch (which hasn't been merged anyway): https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/377693
,
Aug 31 2016
The following revision refers to this bug: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/ff55cf6e7ec5ab5946a134c2f99d6be64f1e4cd1 commit ff55cf6e7ec5ab5946a134c2f99d6be64f1e4cd1 Author: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Date: Tue Aug 30 18:22:31 2016 Fix conflicting FEATURE_OTP and FEATUTRE_ERASE_TO_ZERO #defines FEATURE_OTP and FEATURE_ERASE_TO_ZERO were introduced in different branches at different times and ended up conflicting. This changes FEATURE_ERASE_TO_ZERO to (1 << 9). While we're at it, condense the list a bit so it's not as easy to overlook next time we're merging a bunch of patches... BUG= chromium:642243 BRANCH=none TEST=flashing didn't fail when FEATURE_OTP added (tested using W25Q128FW on Reef) Change-Id: Idd06f1c582c35f9d6b696abaabf4c6f38e7f5858 Signed-off-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/377693 Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org> [modify] https://crrev.com/ff55cf6e7ec5ab5946a134c2f99d6be64f1e4cd1/flash.h
,
Aug 31 2016
Should be fixed, but please do yell if you run into any further difficulties.
,
Sep 2 2016
Looks like flashrom still failed on recent build, 8762.0.0. Check the FAFT dashboard: https://wmatrix.googleplex.com/platform/unfiltered?suites=faft_bios&days_back=30&releases=55&platforms=lulu&hide_missing=True&show_faft_view=True The fix was landed on 8760 (https://crosland.corp.google.com/log/8759.0.0..8760.0.0)
,
Sep 3 2016
Re #7: Hmmm, I suspect that CL:372463 may be the culprit in that case. It seems that the policy handling stuff we have to deal with the Intel flash protection doesn't handle these cases gracefully, so let's revert it (I tested the revert on auron_paine). Side note: We recently wrote an shiny new test script for flashrom (chromium:621715) that can test all use cases on all the different platforms, it would be great to get that integrated into the test suite and avoid surprises like this down the road...
,
Sep 3 2016
Revert CL here, BTW: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/380935/
,
Sep 4 2016
The following revision refers to this bug: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/53540f9a5911f58a53c03fcee143ae571e082886 commit 53540f9a5911f58a53c03fcee143ae571e082886 Author: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Date: Sat Sep 03 00:34:41 2016 Revert "ichspi.c - warn user and disable writes for a protected address range" This reverts commit 18da72c22a599a7fc30307fd3119e7ea273d2cc8. BUG= chromium:642243 TEST=tested on paine Change-Id: Iff4d4a6ec53ad1943063abe2f0b1fc82c256e1dc Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/380935 Commit-Ready: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Tested-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> [modify] https://crrev.com/53540f9a5911f58a53c03fcee143ae571e082886/flashrom.8 [modify] https://crrev.com/53540f9a5911f58a53c03fcee143ae571e082886/ichspi.c
,
Sep 6 2016
Revert patch landed, closing out for now.
,
Oct 7 2016
,
Nov 19 2016
,
Jan 17 2017
The following revision refers to this bug: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/2a962ac9e9fe0e62059a7758824a1aa5aa4e9050 commit 2a962ac9e9fe0e62059a7758824a1aa5aa4e9050 Author: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Date: Tue Aug 30 18:22:31 2016 Fix conflicting FEATURE_OTP and FEATUTRE_ERASE_TO_ZERO #defines FEATURE_OTP and FEATURE_ERASE_TO_ZERO were introduced in different branches at different times and ended up conflicting. This changes FEATURE_ERASE_TO_ZERO to (1 << 9). While we're at it, condense the list a bit so it's not as easy to overlook next time we're merging a bunch of patches... BUG= chromium:642243 BRANCH=none TEST=flashing didn't fail when FEATURE_OTP added (tested using W25Q128FW on Reef) Change-Id: Idd06f1c582c35f9d6b696abaabf4c6f38e7f5858 Signed-off-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/377693 Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/428272 Tested-by: Jongpil Jung <jongpil19.jung@samsung.com> Commit-Queue: Jongpil Jung <jongpil19.jung@samsung.com> [modify] https://crrev.com/2a962ac9e9fe0e62059a7758824a1aa5aa4e9050/flash.h
,
Jan 21 2017
,
Mar 4 2017
,
Apr 17 2017
,
May 30 2017
,
Aug 1 2017
,
Oct 14 2017
|
|||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by diand...@chromium.org
, Aug 30 2016