On 8 March 2015 at 00:46, Steven Honeyman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 March 2015 at 00:24, Stefan Tauner > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:24:49 +0000 >> Steven Honeyman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Probe and Read both worked, no problems >>> >>> Log: >>> >>> […] >>> Probing for Intel 25F640S33T8, 8192 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 >>> 0xc2, id2 0x517 >>> Probing for Macronix MX23L1654, 2048 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 >>> 0xc2, id2 0x517 >>> Probing for Macronix MX23L3254, 4096 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 >>> 0xc2, id2 0x517 >>> Probing for Macronix MX23L6454, 8192 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 >>> 0xc2, id2 0x517 >>> Found Macronix flash chip "MX23L6454" (8192 kB, SPI) on buspirate_spi. >>> Probing for Macronix MX23L12854, 16384 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 >>> 0xc2, id2 0x517 >>> Probing for Macronix MX25L512(E)/MX25V512(C), 64 kB: >>> probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xc2, id2 0x517 >>> Probing for Macronix MX25L1005(C)/MX25L1006E, 128 kB: >>> probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xc2, id2 0x517 >>> Probing for Macronix MX25L2005(C)/MX25L2006E, 256 kB: >>> probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xc2, id2 0x517 >>> Probing for Macronix MX25L4005(A/C)/MX25L4006E, 512 kB: RDID byte 0 >>> parity violation. probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0x00, id2 0x00 >>> Probing for Macronix MX25L8005/MX25L8006E/MX25L8008E/MX25V8005, 1024 >>> kB: RDID byte 0 parity violation. probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0x00, >>> id2 0x00 >>> Probing for Macronix MX25L1605, 2048 kB: RDID byte 0 parity violation. >>> probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0x00, id2 0x00 >>> […] >> >> Hello Steven, >> >> thanks for your report! >> The log looks quite suspicious in terms of reproducibility. The excerpt >> above shows that the chip replied two different things when queried with >> probe_spi_rdid_generic: all zeros and the correct ID (0xc2517) >> respectively. This is usually an indication for wiring problems. If it >> was that inconsistent all the time you would probably not be able to >> read a good image. Did you read the chip multiple times and compared >> the results? > > Hmmm, I didn't (because it was so slow), but I can do if you think > there were issues. > > I only had a quick look through the image but it looked to be what I > was expecting. > I'll dump the image using some other software/hardware and make sure > that matches too.
...ok definitely a false positive on the "works OK" status! 3rd resolder, 8th read attempt now. I haven't got two matching files yet. It keeps missing chunks out, at regular intervals, but different positions each time. I'm happy to upload/send the files & logs somewhere if they'd be useful to you? Tomorrow I'll try and find something else that will recognise & read this. The chip came from a working board so I know the ROM is good. _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
