[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m34p42mumu.fsf@maximus.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:04:25 +0200
From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To: Tim Gardner <timg@....com>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
"Brandeburg\, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, agospoda@...hat.com,
"Ronciak\, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
"Allan\, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
"Graham\, David" <david.graham@...el.com>, kkiel@...e.de,
tglx@...utronix.de, chris.jones@...onical.com,
arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com
Subject: Re: e1000e NVM corruption issue status
Tim Gardner <timg@....com> writes:
> I've been experimenting with unmapping flash space until its actually
> needed, e.g., in the functions that use the E1000_READ_FLASH and
> E1000_WRITE_FLASH macros. Along the way I looked at how flash write
> cycles are initiated because I was having a hard time believing that
> having flash space mapped was part of the root cause. However, it looks
> like its pretty simple to initiate a write or erase cycle. All of the
> required action bits in ICH_FLASH_HSFSTS and ICH_FLASH_HSFCTL must be 1,
> and these 2 register are in the correct order if X was writing 0xff in
> ascending order.
But... do you really have a flash chip there? I think it's more about
EEPROM (a serial usually 8-pin small chip, keeping the MAC address and
hardware configuration). Flash chips are used for diskless booting
(though corrupting them can make the machine unbootable of course).
Sure, writing to a parallel flash chip is easy, much easier than to
serial EEPROM.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists