Patchwork add AMD hudson support

login
register
about
Submitter Jason Wang
Date 2011-08-26 01:56:42
Message ID <CADuV8k5DU9D2x8+NLLzxVS2dsARo1bwTnN7AJ-1enxC4ciDOHg@mail.gmail.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/3394/
State Accepted
Headers show

Comments

Jason Wang - 2011-08-26 01:56:42
you are right, it's 0x1022. new patch attached~~~



Best wishes
Wang Qing Pei
Phone: 86+018930528086


On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:06:12PM +0800, QingPei Wang wrote:
> > The HUDSON has different vendor & device id than SBx00. The ids are got
> > by lspci.
> > Signed-off-by: Wang Qing Pei <wangqingpei@gmail.com>
>
> Thanks for the patch, we'll merge it soonish, but please see below for
> some questions.
>
>
> > Index: chipset_enable.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- chipset_enable.c    (revision 1419)
> > +++ chipset_enable.c    (working copy)
> > @@ -1052,6 +1052,7 @@
>
> > +    {0x1002, 0x780e, OK, "AMD", "HUDSON",        enable_flash_sb600},
>
> Shouldn't this be 0x1022 (AMD instead of ATI ID) here?
>
> Also, did you test the chipset-enable on real hardware? Otherwise we
> should probably commit this as "NT" (not tested) instead of "OK".
>
> Please post a log of "./flashrom -V" with the patch applied if you own
> some test hardware, thanks!
>
>
> Uwe.
> --
> http://hermann-uwe.de     | http://sigrok.org
> http://randomprojects.org | http://unmaintained-free-software.org
>
Paul Menzel - 2011-08-26 09:14:17
Am Freitag, den 26.08.2011, 09:56 +0800 schrieb QingPei Wang:
> you are right, it's 0x1022. new patch attached~~~

Thank you! Did you test it? Can you attach the output of `flashrom -V`
as Uwe asked you to do?


Thanks,

Paul
Uwe Hermann - 2011-08-26 21:12:30
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:56:42AM +0800, QingPei Wang wrote:
> you are right, it's 0x1022. new patch attached~~~

Thanks, committed as r1422. Please let us know if the patch is tested on
hardware or not though, and preferrably also post the output of
"./flashrom -V", thanks!

 
Uwe.

Patch

Index: chipset_enable.c
===================================================================
--- chipset_enable.c	(revision 1419)
+++ chipset_enable.c	(working copy)
@@ -1052,6 +1052,7 @@ 
 	{0x1002, 0x4377, OK, "ATI", "SB400",		enable_flash_sb400},
 	{0x1002, 0x438d, OK, "AMD", "SB600",		enable_flash_sb600},
 	{0x1002, 0x439d, OK, "AMD", "SB700/SB710/SB750/SB850", enable_flash_sb600},
+	{0x1022, 0x780e, OK, "AMD", "HUDSON",		enable_flash_sb600},
 	{0x100b, 0x0510, NT, "AMD", "SC1100",		enable_flash_sc1100},
 	{0x1022, 0x2080, OK, "AMD", "CS5536",		enable_flash_cs5536},
 	{0x1022, 0x2090, OK, "AMD", "CS5536",		enable_flash_cs5536},
Index: sb600spi.c
===================================================================
--- sb600spi.c	(revision 1419)
+++ sb600spi.c	(working copy)
@@ -259,8 +259,11 @@ 
 	smbus_dev = pci_dev_find(0x1002, 0x4385);
 
 	if (!smbus_dev) {
-		msg_perr("ERROR: SMBus device not found. Not enabling SPI.\n");
-		return ERROR_NONFATAL;
+		smbus_dev = pci_dev_find(0x1022,0x780b); /*HUDSON*/
+		if(!smbus_dev){
+			msg_perr("ERROR: SMBus device not found. Not enabling SPI.\n");
+			return ERROR_NONFATAL;
+		}
 	}
 
 	/* Note about the bit tests below: If a bit is zero, the GPIO is SPI. */