Okay. More of the same over here.
For this test I used an original DuoX2 and 2 clones from 2 different manufacterers.
I used an original DuoX2 with the true AMD flashrom.
One clone appears to use a fake ST M49FL080A Labeled SINGAPORE on the bottom, and lacking the ST logo.
And the other clone uses an original ST M49FL080A sporting the ST logo.
I used Eurasia to see if maybe EvoX was the problem. I first flashed the original chip. It went fine.
I then used the clone with the fake ST. It erashed fine, then froze about 30% of the way through. Both banks were erased/corrupted. I was able to recover both banks fine via hotswap flashing from EvoX.
I tried the higher quality clone w/ the true ST flashroms next (the ones from my shop). It erased, then stopped about 30% of the way through. Again, both banks were erased, but were easily recovered via hotswap flashing.
I'm wondering if the problem is not the CPLD coding, as the clones being used are from totally different manufacterers. I'm wondering if the problem is actually the flashrom itself. Or rather, the way that the software deals with the flashroms. All of the clones contain the ST flashrom (or assumed fake M49FL080As). I would assume the CPLD programming would probably be different on them all. I find it especially strange that it corrupts both banks... You woulnd't think it wouldn't write outside of that 512k bank... I'd like to see an ST transplanted onto a true DuoX2 to see if, indeed, it is the CPLD programming or the flashrom handling...
Just a thought. I don't know shit, tho. It seems super fishy tho, that 2x256k bios would flash but not a 512k bios...
So these chips, thusfar, are deemed unusable for the new X2 bios until an alternate flashing method can be used, or until the manufacterers can fix this. I'm going to email my contacts in China today to see if they can get a remedy happening... until then, I'll try a few more flashing methods ie) sunday flash.
Peace