Re: [coreboot] Coreboot at Apollo Lake Oxbohill CRB

Hi, On 02/24/2017 09:19 PM, Gailu Singh wrote: Hi Experts, I have built coreboot image for Apollo Lake and trying to boot Oxbohill CRB but no console or display at HDMI port. you need a bunch of blobs (of course), most importantly fitimage.bin and fsp. Please use

[coreboot] Coreboot at Apollo Lake Oxbohill CRB

Hi Experts, I have built coreboot image for Apollo Lake and trying to boot Oxbohill CRB but no console or display at HDMI port. My coreboot.rom details Name Offset Type Size cbfs master header 0x0cbfs header 32 fallback/romstage

[coreboot] Mailing List vs Forum poll

As brought up in the last coreboot community meeting, the coreboot project is discussing the idea of switching from the mailing list to a forum. This idea did not originate with the coreboot leadership, but from a request by members of the community. I know many people have some strong feelings

Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Always include coreboot banner in console independent of log level

My argument is that if nothing at all is shown, its difficult to know if that's because nothing needs to be shown, or because the console is busted. Maybe we break break up the banner, and don't print both romstage and ramstage banners, but just the romstage banner. I'd say that just printing

Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Always include coreboot banner in console independent of log level

I think "only print problems / exceptional conditions" is a reasonable use case. All UART output wastes time. Is there a reason you want to see the banner but don't want to run at NOTICE? Maybe the better answer would be to add a new log level (e.g. LOG_IMPORTANT) between NOTICE and WARNING (or

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot on Thinkpad "X62" (i7-5600u)?

On 02/23/2017 04:22 PM, Rafael Send wrote: "MEI device not found". I take it that's good news? Rafael On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Iru Cai wrote: Hello, On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Rafael Send wrote: Hello there- I'm assuming this is

Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Always include coreboot banner in console independent of log level

Dear Ron, Am Freitag, den 24.02.2017, 21:56 + schrieb ron minnich: > I agree with you. Always avoid new options. Good. ;-) > Just print the banner at spew. That's what spew is there for. Hmm, as written, in my opinion the log level for that should actually be lower, and not higher. Could

Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Always include coreboot banner in console independent of log level

Hi Paul, I agree that it seems reasonable to always print the banner to the console. My recommendation is that we don't even add it as an option. If there's a console set up, write the banner to it. As I recall from Sage's version of coreboot, they made this same change, and printed it at

Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Always include coreboot banner in console independent of log level

I agree with you. Always avoid new options. Just print the banner at spew. That's what spew is there for. On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:53 PM Paul Menzel via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote: > Dear coreboot folks, > > > Playing a little with the log levels and QEMU, it turns out that there >

Re: [coreboot] Dont filter supported CPUs on a mainboard by the CPUID

How about just changing the die() into a printk(BIOS_ALERT, ...) and an assert(0)? Then people could use CONFIG_FATAL_ASSERTS to select whether they would rather fail fast or try to keep booting as far as possible. On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:46 AM, ron minnich wrote: > For

[coreboot] [RFC] Always include coreboot banner in console independent of log level

Dear coreboot folks, Playing a little with the log levels and QEMU, it turns out that there are no coreboot messages below the log level *NOTICE*. This is expected, but like with SeaBIOS, it’d be a good idea in my opinion to at least output the “banner” of romstage and ramstage. ```

Re: [coreboot] The fastest possible intel free-as-in-freedom pattform not supported now?

Why wouldn't you just use an interlagos g34/c32 opteron (no me or psp) which is way faster than that first gen intel core you mention, and there are already coreboot boards that have native init. I can't understand the obsession with intel that everyone has. -- coreboot mailing list:

Re: [coreboot] Dont filter supported CPUs on a mainboard by the CPUID

For those of us working on boards that don't ship in a product, the die() is probably not appropriate. But if you intend to ship a real product then you definitely want to die() if someone tries to use a CPU that's not tested on the board. Or at least that's the way it seems to me. On Fri, Feb

Re: [coreboot] Dont filter supported CPUs on a mainboard by the CPUID

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:04 AM, wrote: > Yes, this die() is what i mean. Try to get maybe some functionality is i > think better then just stopping there and providing zero functionality. > > I also know, that there is a message when the CPUID is not known. Its about

Re: [coreboot] Lenovo T420 Question

The temperature difference get bigger when the temperature rise. I recommend the Thermal Grizzly "Kryonaut" over the GC-extreme. The price didnt matter that much in such cases. I for myself use 5g in about 5 years. "I" think Thermal Grizzly "Kryonaut" is better. If i get 5 oder 10g for 15euro -

Re: [coreboot] Lenovo T420 Question

Hi, i took my results from this page (could use google translate) - https://www.overclockers.ru/lab/79286_4/testirovanie-termointerfejsov-v-poiskah-idealnoj-termopasty-ili-novinki-protiv-vcherashnih-chempionov.html >From your 1st test, Grizzly is better by 0.33 C , and from your 2nd test - by 0.31

Re: [coreboot] Dont filter supported CPUs on a mainboard by the CPUID

Yes, this die() is what i mean. Try to get maybe some functionality is i think better then just stopping there and providing zero functionality. I also know, that there is a message when the CPUID is not known. Its about the die() afterwards. 23. Feb 2017 14:31 by coreboot@coreboot.org: >

Re: [coreboot] Lenovo T420 Question

This test here show the opposite: http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/831791d1434218266-review-thermal-grizzly-kryonaut-hydronaut-auswertung.jpg The Gelid GC-Extreme is not as good as Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut also listed by this test here:

Re: [coreboot] QA: Properly relay results of `checkpatch.pl` check

Dear Martin, Am Donnerstag, den 23.02.2017, 16:47 -0700 schrieb Martin Roth: > checkpatch is currently not a gating item in jenkins and should always > pass right now.  The checkpatch build was added to jenkins to allow people > to see at the results of the console output for the patch without