I have a PC Engines apu2d4 running NetBSD 8 (amd64), and would like to
update coreboot/etc. on it. I searched the list (perhaps not well) and
didn't find any reports of success, although I realize things are
generally expected to work so success might well go unreported.
I am using flashrom 1.1 a
Greg Troxel writes a year ago (in March of 2020):
> I have a PC Engines apu2d4 running NetBSD 8 (amd64), and would like to
> update coreboot/etc. on it. I searched the list (perhaps not well) and
> didn't find any reports of success, although I realize things are
> generally
Stephen Hladysh writes:
> flashrom -w /tmp/apu2_v4.14.0.1.rom -p internal
> flashrom v1.2 on FreeBSD 12.2-STABLE (amd64)
> flashrom is free software, get the source code at https://flashrom.org
I am far from an expert, but:
have you previously run flashrom successfully on this device? Other
I am just a lurker because I use flashrom to update my apu2 bios, so I
am not going to attend anyway (even if it were at a convenient time
EST).
However, if I were, then I would reject anything that requires a Google
account (or even worse, a facebook account), and also reject anything
that requi
Felix Singer writes:
> Hi Greg,
>
> thanks for reaching out :)
>
> On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 08:11 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> However, if I were, then I would reject anything that requires a
>> Google account (or even worse, a facebook account), and also rejec
> I've noticed something related in reviews over the years, though. Some-
> times when reviewers give a lot of comments on Gerrit, among them some
> critical ones about the overall patch and a lot of nits, the author
> tends to fix the nits and ignore the critical comments. Sure, when
> somebody i
Richard Hughes writes:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 20:04, Nico Huber wrote:
>> There is also one big general issue: we need to maintain two build
>> systems now. We can't use GNU make only, because nobody knows what
>> the requirements of the Meson users are.
>
> My vote would be to remove the *Ma
Some comments from a packager and experience with switching to cmake,
some of it ok, some of it bad. I'm trimming stuff I don't have any
comments on as I think you have this mostly right.
Thomas Heijligen writes:
> ## Platforms to support
> * Systems
> * Linux (Distros / ChromeOS)
Long-
pkgsrc has cmocka 1.1.5. Telling the flashrom package that it is needed
for running tests, or that it's always needed is one line in the control
Makefile. Including it or downloading it is much more painful.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_
Thomas Heijligen writes:
> The current policy with the Makefile is to stay backwards compatible.
That's fine because make is stable, even the GNU flavor. There really
shouldn't be anything in a makefile that is an issue for 5 year old
make. The dependency requirements are a different matter,
Anastasia Klimchuk writes:
> I haven’t done any releases before, so tell me if I am wrong. But what I am
> thinking when looking at the list of issues: maybe we can have some time
> for “just fixing issues on master” and after that do a release branch? Does
> it make sense?
> “Some time” won’t t
Evan Benn writes:
> I think the first question is is the flashrom community happy to have
> these bindings live inside the flashrom git repo? They could live in
> their own separate repos, but keeping them with flashrom will make
> keeping up with libflashrom API changes more straightforward.
I
Anastasia Klimchuk writes:
> * As the time goes, chip vendors are producing newer models, which
> sometimes re-use model IDs of old versions. Old versions are
> considered as "end of life", and replaced with newer models with more
> features. However flashchips.c accumulates everything and with t
Angel Pons writes:
> Newer chips support SFDP (Serial Flash Discoverable Parameter), a
> specification that allows (at least) SPI flash chips to self-document
> themselves to software, and that nearly all flash chips from the last
> decade or so support. So, I would highly recommend using SFDP to
14 matches
Mail list logo
