# Need help with Supermicro bios flash w/Ubuntu 10.10



## BUCK NASTY (Sep 15, 2012)

Ok, who can help me figure out how to flash a special bios onto my brand new SuperMicro H8QGL-IF+? I am a total Linux noob, but I'm picking up on it quickly. I'm running Ubuntu 10.10 due to it's ability to fold faster than current OS's. I have the special bios downloaded, but i am confused on where to go from here. I have a flash drive if I have to make it bootable. Help out a brother Please!!!!


----------



## xfire (Sep 15, 2012)

http://tuxtweaks.com/2009/09/create-a-bootable-freedos-usb-drive-on-linux-with-unetbootin/

do that, then copy the exe file to the pendrive. Then boot from it.

edit: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1634874  more detailed one.


----------



## Drone (Sep 15, 2012)

Flashing bios doesn't necessarily depend on OS. However if you want to do with on Linux then do it with *flashrom*.

Here you can see how to do it.

edit: Example

Install it:
*$ apt-get install flashrom*

Detect whether flashrom knows about your chipset/mainboard/BIOS chip:
*$ flashrom*

Read the BIOS image into a file:
*$ flashrom -r backup.bin*

Write a BIOS image (proprietary or LinuxBIOS) on the ROM chip:
*$ flashrom -wv newbios.bin*


WARNING: This will overwrite your current BIOS! Make sure you know what you're doing!




p.s. I did that before and it works. It was long time ago tho. I don't flash bios much.


----------



## Peter1986C (Sep 15, 2012)

Generally it is better to avoid doing a flash from a running OS. The described method using Unetbootin to make a FreeDOS USB drive that will act like "DOS floppy" is the safest way.


----------



## Drone (Sep 15, 2012)

Chevalr1c said:


> Generally it is better to avoid doing a flash from a running OS.


Where this myth came from? The software does exactly the same thing. Replaces old bin with the new one.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 15, 2012)

Drone said:


> Where this myth came from? The software does exactly the same thing. Replaces old bin with the new one.



Exactly, if anything it is better these days to do it in the OS, because if something goes wrong, the OS running gives more options to figure out how to fix the issue. The machine will continue to run perfectly fine until you reboot.  This gives you the chance to download recovery tools, attempt to reflash, try flashing a different BIOS, etc.

I think this myth used to be true back in the Win 95/98 days, when the OS would mess with the memory addressing and shit and flashing the BIOS from the OS could easily corrupt the BIOS if the OS wasn't addressing the BIOS ROM properly.  As well as people trying to use DOS utilities inside the Windows virtual DOS window, which would cause all types of havok.

But in modern times the utilities are built to be run inside the OS, and they are perfectly safe to do so.

But anyway, this isn't answering the main question, so lets not get the thread sidetracked.

Sorry Buck.


----------



## Drone (Sep 15, 2012)

newtekie1 said:
			
		

> Exactly, if anything it is better these days to do it in the OS, because if something goes wrong, the OS running gives more options to figure out how to fix the issue. The machine will continue to run perfectly fine until you reboot.  This gives you the chance to download recovery tools, attempt to reflash, try flashing a different BIOS, etc.


Sure. If that wasn't so manufacturers wouldn't create all that software in the first place. 



> I think this myth used to be true back in the Win 95/98 days, when the OS would mess with the memory addressing.


No idea, I was way too young in 95/98. And my first pc was a Linux machine anyway, it didn't mess with memory addressing lol.



> But anyway, this isn't answering the main question, so lets not get the thread sidetracked.


There's nothing unhealthy in this kind of discussion. Because if there is a question "how" there can be a question "why". It's on topic.


----------



## Peter1986C (Sep 15, 2012)

Thanks Newtekie1 for the info. Sorry for the false alarm.


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Sep 15, 2012)

Thanks Drone & Newtekie1! I will use Flashrom. *What is the chance that the chip is not supported?*


----------



## Drone (Sep 15, 2012)

BUCK NASTY said:


> Thanks Drone & Newtekie1! I will use Flashrom. *What is the chance that the chip is not supported?*



It's their official site

http://flashrom.org/Flashrom



> Supports more than 300 flash chips, 220 chipsets, 400 mainboards, 50 PCI devices, 12 USB devices and various parallel/serial port-based programmers.



And here's the list of supported hardware

http://flashrom.org/Supported_hardware


----------

