Re: e1000e NVM corruption issue status

[Brandeburg, Jesse]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Tim Gardner wrote:
> > Ok here's an updated one.  Jesse (Br) can you add it to your list?  If the X 
> > driver really is mapping too much this should catch it, as long as it goes 
> > through sysfs.

I have, am testing with it now.

> 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

That sounds like a good patch set.  I had thought of trying that but 
hadn't gotten to it yet, so if you have something to look at in diff 
format just post it and we'll take a look.

> 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.

Seems simple but when I tried it for a couple of hours yesterday I 
couldn't get anything to happen to my flash.  This included putting 
ew16flash writes in the e1000e driver, and writing those magic bits.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/