On 02/10/14 19:31, Aaron Durbin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:21 PM, John Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 22/09/14 19:59, Aaron Durbin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 22/09/14 17:39, Aaron Durbin wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:14 AM, John Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 21/09/14 14:06, Aaron Durbin wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:44 AM, John Lewis <[email protected]>
wrote:
snip
I'm trying to flash the ROM externally now, but it's telling me
it
can't
disable block protection. It gets as far as trying to erase
0x600000,
then
goes through all the erase functions, finally crapping out. Do
you
know
how
I can work-around that?
The write protect screw is removed, right? After that the flash's
write protect register needs to be updated. Do you know the
status
register values? Flashrom should be able to do that.
Yes, it is definitely removed - I didn't put it back in after the
initial
brick. It says the register value is 0x94 - I did also hook up the
Bus
Pirate for use with statically linked ChromeOS Flashrom (as the
particular
version I have doesn't have Dediprog support) - I had an idea
running
--wp-disable might help, but it didn't recognise the chip and said
the
register was already 0x94 (paraphrasing). I am currently compiling
a
newer
statically linked version of ChromeOS Flashrom using the SDK, in
the
hope
that might be able to do the job. Am I barking up the wrong tree
though, or
is there something else I could do?
You are in the right spot. The fact that it failed at 6MiB is very
indicative of the SPI part write protection. There are, however,
more
than one status register. There should be 3 of them:
Read Status Register-1 (05h), Status Register-2 (35h) & Status
Register-3 (15h)
Btw, I'm referencing W25Q64FW datasheet.
-Aaron
Yeah, using --wp-status with Clapper's Flashrom tells me that the
write
protect *is* enabled, after all. But I can't see where, apart from
the
screw I took out right next to the battery, the write-protect screw
would be? And I'm confused as to why it let me write initially if
the
write-protect wasn't enabled.
This is the output I get trying to run --wp-disable:
w25_set_srp0: old status: 0x94
w25_set_srp0: new status: 0x94
w25q_disable_writeprotect(): error=1.
No -i argument is specified, set ignore_fmap.
FAILED
Setting SPI voltage to 0.000 V
restore_power_management: Re-enabling power management.
I've sorted it out now - had to bridge pins 3,7 and 8 using a large
paper-clip, as alluded to in the OSCON presentation, referenced by
Barry
Schultz. Never had to do that before, oddly.
Interesting. You had to hard pull WP# and HOLD#. I need to take a look
at that circuit. I wouldn't have expected you to do that either.
I don't understand it obviously, but I thought the main point was to
get
voltage to the WP pin to disable the hard write-protect.
I looked at the schematics. There's a lot of complexity in that area
because of voltage differences. I'm not surprised you had to short WP#
to SPI VCC to make it work. I'm guessing this is most likely required
for all baytrail based ChromeOS devices.
Anyway, back to our original problem - the ROM with the refcode section
changed from type 50 to type 10, still doesn't give us anything. As an
experiment, I tried extracting one of my own kernel payloads, then
adding
it
back in unchanged as a raw file, and changing the type to 50 on my
Falco,
and that doesn't work either.
Could we try turning the extracted refcode binary back into an elf? How
would I go about that?
I'm told firmware-clapper-5216.199.B is the correct firmware branch
to use. The other one is old and may not be working (this issue?).
I'd be curious to see if you can get anything from your image.
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/servo has the servo pin
definitions for the cable. You could get uarts from EC and the
baytrail part.
As for changing that thing back to ELF, it's definitely possible. Can
we try using the proper branch first? If not, the refcode is an
rmodule so you'll just need to take the relocation information and the
code to create a new ELF. We don't have a tool to do that right now,
but it wouldn't be too too hard.
I already switched to 5216.199.B today as that's the one the shellball is
using. Unfortunately, it didn't make too much difference.
That's a bit over my head - I am a complete dunce when it comes to
electronics, can't even use a soldering iron. I don't know how to read
schematics even. Unless you or someone else can illustrate further what
would need to be done there, it's going to be a no go. I think Ron did
semi-promise me a servo board near the start of the year though. ;)
I also tried recreating the elf using the commands on the Hacking VMX
page
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-information-for-chrome-os-devices/samsung-sandy-bridge/coreboot-vmx-hack
but I'm fairly sure some of those values would be wrong. Happily though,
the
elf ended up exactly the right size once it was in the ROM (4296 bytes).
Still didn't help though.
Finally, I enabled the i915 driver in my Jeltka embedded Linux in the
hope
that there was just something wrong with SeaBIOS/video so it might get as
far as the payload and give me a display regardless. But again, that
didn't
help. Tried with refcode done both ways.
My concern is that we are focusing on this refcode thing, though
valid, but we're tripping over other issues. The only way I can see of
obtaining proof of life is to either get an LPC debug decoder (could
attach to TPM) or getting uarts from the EC and x86. The servo
connector has the EC and x86 uarts on it. We could tap into that.
Could you load your SPI image to a place I could pull it down and
inspect it? I may be able to magically find some issue. But don't hold
your breath. :)
The only other thing that sticks out to me is vboot. Even though I have "#
CONFIG_VBOOT_VERIFY_FIRMWARE is not set" in the config, the build still
expects to find vboot_api.h from platform/vboot_reference. I've managed with
some help to reasonably reliably get other models working using ChromeOS
coreboot in the past, so I have to assume it's something new like this or
refcode, causing the issue. It seems to me that a few problems are caused by
code from one feature being tightly integrated with code from another, and
when you don't want to use one of the features, things break.
I've uploaded my last go to https://johnlewis.ie/coreboot-clapper-220914.rom
I apologize for not getting back to this. It's been sitting in my
inbox, and I just realized last night that it's been over a week. The
mrc.bin is in the wrong part of the rom. It needs to be moved 1KiB
back.
Current:
$ cbfstool coreboot-clapper-220914.rom print
coreboot-clapper-220914.rom: 8192 kB, bootblocksize 1184, romsize
8388608, offset 0x400000
alignment: 64 bytes, architecture: x86
Name Offset Type Size
cmos_layout.bin 0x400000 cmos_layout 1164
pci8086,0f31.rom 0x4004c0 optionrom 65536
cpu_microcode_blob.bin 0x410500 microcode 104448
config 0x429d80 raw 4852
fallback/refcode 0x42b0c0 stage 4296
(empty) 0x42c1c0 null 15768
fallback/romstage 0x42ff80 stage 35539
fallback/coreboot_ram 0x438ac0 stage 77305
fallback/payload 0x44b900 payload 3263688
(empty) 0x768600 null 227736
mrc.bin 0x79ffc0 (unknown) 70168
(empty) 0x7b1240 null 240984
spd.bin 0x7ebfc0 (unknown) 2048
(empty) 0x7ec800 null 78552
mrc.bin in this is actually an ELF file and there's 0x40 bytes of cbfs
metadata at 0x79ffc0. So ELF file lives at 0xfffa0000, but we want the
XIP code to live at that address.
$ cbfstool coreboot-clapper-220914.rom extract -n mrc.bin -f mrc.elf
$ readelf -e mrc.elf
ELF Header:
Magic: 7f 45 4c 46 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Class: ELF32
Data: 2's complement, little endian
Version: 1 (current)
OS/ABI: UNIX - System V
ABI Version: 0
Type: EXEC (Executable file)
Machine: Intel 80386
Version: 0x1
Entry point address: 0xfffa0000
Start of program headers: 52 (bytes into file)
Start of section headers: 69848 (bytes into file)
Flags: 0x0
Size of this header: 52 (bytes)
Size of program headers: 32 (bytes)
Number of program headers: 3
Size of section headers: 40 (bytes)
Number of section headers: 8
Section header string table index: 7
Section Headers:
[Nr] Name Type Addr Off Size ES Flg Lk Inf
Al
[ 0] NULL 00000000 000000 000000 00 0 0 0
[ 1] .MRC PROGBITS fffa0000 001000 00dadc 00 AX 0 0
4
[ 2] .GUID PROGBITS fffadadc 00eadc 000318 00 WA 0 0
4
[ 3] .VARS NOBITS fe008000 001000 002e08 00 WA 0 0
4
[ 4] .STACK NOBITS fe00ae08 001000 0051f8 00 WA 0 0
1
[ 5] .rel.MRC REL 00000000 00edf4 002110 08 0 1
1
[ 6] .rel.GUID REL 00000000 010f04 0001a8 08 0 2
1
[ 7] .shstrtab STRTAB 00000000 0110ac 00002b 00 0 0
1
Key to Flags:
W (write), A (alloc), X (execute), M (merge), S (strings)
I (info), L (link order), G (group), T (TLS), E (exclude), x (unknown)
O (extra OS processing required) o (OS specific), p (processor specific)
Program Headers:
Type Offset VirtAddr PhysAddr FileSiz MemSiz Flg Align
LOAD 0x001000 0xfe008000 0xfe008000 0x00000 0x08000 RW 0x1000
LOAD 0x001000 0xfffa0000 0xfffa0000 0x0ddf4 0x0ddf4 RWE 0x1000
GNU_STACK 0x000000 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x00000 0x00000 RWE 0x4
Section to Segment mapping:
Segment Sections...
00 .VARS .STACK
01 .MRC .GUID
02
The .MRC section is where the code lives (01 load segment). We want
that to live at 0xfffa0000 which is at offset 0x1000 into the elf
file. Therefore, we want this file to be added at 0xfffa0000 - 0x1000.
You could manually move this or just 'cbfstool remove' then 'cbfstool
add' with the appropriate address.
Hope that helps.
No worries at all. At least it's not had chance to gather too much dust
upstairs. Don't you mean 4k back, as 0x1000 hex is 4096 bytes?
When I tried to add mrc.bin with a base address of 0x79efc0, it ended up
at 0x79ef80. Using a base address of 0x79f000 got it in the right place,
but there is still no output.
Just to make sure I hadn't got the wrong end of the stick, I edited
src/soc/intel/baytrail/Makefile.inc, changed mrc.bin-position to
0xfff9f000, and built again. The mrc.bin ended up at 0x79efc0, but again
still no output.
The only discernible difference is that the power button now switches
off immediately, instead of requiring a long press.
Thank you so much for all your help so far, and for coming back to this.
John.
--
coreboot mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
