[coreboot] Re: I need you help.
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:00:29 +0300, Mike Banon wrote: > There is a batch of black CH341A s which are giving 5V instead of 3.3V > - which is dangerous for flashing - so please try to get a green > CH341A. I would not count on the color of the PCB and always verify it myself. In SPI, the CS pin is usually active low and can easily be measured with a DMM while idle: it should give 3.3 V. Note that measuring Vcc is not enough, because those faulty CH341As often have Vcc = 3.3 V and are marketed as 3.3V, but still use 5 V for the logic signals. Regards, Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: [RFH] Test Lenovo X230 with master?
Hi Felix, On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:43:19 -0400, Felix Freeman wrote: > > I just found this, it's probably the issue described there: > > https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/55343 > > Turns out there's a patch submitted that works around the issue: > https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/64235 > > I've tested it and it works :) Thanks for the hint! That also worked for me, it's how I worked around the issue a few weeks ago (with help from the friendly IRC channel :). I can confirm it works with coreboot 4.16-838-gaa8b1f8b38. Merlin -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: Installing coreboot with SeaBIOS
Hi Peter and Piotr, thank you for your replies. Maybe I misunderstood what Bernd is trying to achieve. If so, I'm sorry. Generally, I very much encourage people to play around with FW/HW/SW and to learn how (seemingly) complex stuff works. However, it sounded to me that Bernd was actually wanting/needing a computer system which is "more secure": They asked for "step to step instructions" in their first mail, and said "this entire topic is extremely sensitive, for the moment I'd prefer not to reveal my identity". "More secure" is obviously a relative term and will mean different things for different people or different threat models. If you want to harden your firmware via coreboot and make it more secure than the stock firmware, you have to learn how things work on a deeper level, which would take *more* than a few days if you are a complete beginner (like Bernd seems to be, at least to me). The alternative would be to buy something with coreboot pre-installed like Chromebooks, which has some tradeoffs I guess (for security, understanding how things work is very valuable and almost a prerequisite I guess) - but it's much faster, it does not take several weeks+. After reading my last mail again I think it sounds a little unfriendly, that was not my intend. Also let me clarify regarding the previous paragraph: There is obviously not anything wrong with being a beginner! We all were beginners at some point. (Actually, learning more about firmware often makes me feel even more like a beginner :D) It is not meant to sound insulting or offending in any way. It was just my impression that Bernd is looking for something which I thought just compiling+flashing coreboot could not provide, so I wanted to prevent them from "going down the wrong rabbit hole". On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 18:22:40 +, Peter Stuge wrote: > I hope Bernd does proceed and the first success shouldn't be too long > now. It's a great feeling to have a machine (virtual or otherwise) > boot self-built firmware! :) Btw I forgot about the VM. I was just thinking about HW-flashing the X220. Regards, Merlin > > > Hang in there > > //Peter > ___ > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: Installing coreboot with SeaBIOS
Hi, > Are the errors a problem and do I need to do something? Can I proceed? Yes of course, they're *errors* after all. Look here: > /bin/sh: 1: python: not found > make[2]: *** [Makefile:168: out/romlayout16.lds] Error 127 > make[1]: *** [Makefile:84: build] Error 2 > make: *** [payloads/external/Makefile.inc:65: > payloads/external/SeaBIOS/seabios/out/bios.bin.elf] Error 2 In the first line it says it could not found python on your system. So, install python and try building again by running `make clean` followed by `make`. No offense, but you may be better off with buying some device which has coreboot pre-installed (if that's what you want). For a list of vendors who sell devices with coreboot/SeaBIOS pre-installed, look at the section "Consumer platforms" at the bottom here: https://coreboot.org/users.html If you want to proceed with doing it yourself, be prepared that it will take some time (several weeks+) and that you will have to learn a lot. Good luck! Merlin -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: Installing OpenBIOS/coreboot
On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 17:50:08 +0100, bernd...@web.de wrote: > Hi. Is the X220 (notebook model; not tablet model) supported, too? Yes, X220 and X230 are both supported. -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: how intel ME is connected to the internet ?
On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 20:58:14 +0200, Nico Huber wrote: > A quick search for "intel amt configure ip" led me here [1]. It seems > there was a time when one could configure individual IP addresses for > ME and host OS's, but that ended about 10 years ago. And the ME also had (has?) its own MAC address: "The ME has its own MAC and IP address for the out-of-band interface, with direct access to the Ethernet controller; one portion of the Ethernet traffic is diverted to the ME even before reaching the host's operating system, [...]." According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Hardware ... which in turn references: http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/i210-ethernet-controller-datasheet.pdf That's from 2012, but still updated this year. > AMT is the name of the networking software that runs on the ME btw. > Many ME firmware packages don't have AMT at all. So officially, these > couldn't do networking. Well, devices without AMT firmware couldn't do the advertised out-of-band management etc. which is implemented by AMT, but these devices may still have network-capable ME firmware, maybe for AntiTheft technology (apparently discontinued in 2015) or whatever... Regards, -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: What should we do about freenode IRC services?
On Wed, 26 May 2021 06:38:58 +, Felix Singer wrote: >- The Matrix bridge for libera is WIP. I am not sure if OFTC has > one. I couldn't find anything on their website. OFTC has a working matrix bridge. But I guess given the current situation, libera will have one soon, too (but I don't know). -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: What should we do about freenode IRC services?
On Wed, 26 May 2021 00:03:34 +, Peter Stuge wrote: > I don't think it's a horrible idea to just chill and see what happens. I > find it interesting that christel seems invested in the Handshake project. IMO we have chilled enough to see what happens. Currently most channels which mention libera in their topic get forcibly taken over be the new freenode staff and moved to the ## namespace, like here[0]. Personally, I want to move away from this network ASAP. Regards, -- Merlin Büge [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27285774 ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: What should we do about freenode IRC services?
Hi all, On Tue, 25 May 2021 15:00:51 +0200, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: > So, what should we do? I'm not a dev but long-time user of coreboot. I would be happy with staying on IRC (OFTC or libera) or switching to something that could easily be bridged to IRC. I also think that would fit nicely with coreboot's philosophy (simplistic, no-frills, etc.). Regards, -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Master currently broken on Thinkpad X230 when using option table
Hi, on my Thinkpad X230 coreboot master does not boot when using the option CONFIG_USE_OPTION_TABLE=y. The screen just stays black. I have no log. This may also affect other platforms(?). I git-bisected the issue and it seems the following commit has introduced it: 9d0cc2aea9 cbfs: Introduce cbfs_ro_map() and cbfs_ro_load() https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/39306 Attached is a working an non-working defconfig. Note that CONFIG_NVRAMCUI_SECONDARY_PAYLOAD=y pulls in CONFIG_USE_OPTION_TABLE=y as a dependency. Regards, -- Merlin Büge coreboot-9d0cc2aea9_non-working.defconfig Description: Binary data coreboot-9d0cc2aea9_working.defconfig Description: Binary data ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: OpenBMC on KGPE-D16, somebody has it working?
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:53:05 -0500 (CDT) Timothy Pearson wrote: [...] > On our POWER line there's a new project called "!BMC" right now that offers a > very minimal boot-only BMC. That targets the AST2400 and ppc64, but it might > be an easy backport target to the D16 given the similarities between the > hardware of the AST2400 and the AST2050. I think it's the AST2500 which !BMC targets. Merlin > > - Original Message - > > From: "insurgo" > > To: "coreboot" > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 10:40:22 AM > > Subject: [coreboot] Re: OpenBMC on KGPE-D16, somebody has it working? > > > OpenBMC for the KGPE-D16 is here and "works": > > https://www.raptorengineering.com/coreboot/kgpe-d16-bmc-port-status.php > > > > > > This is stale, PoC state quality: > > > > - SSH password is hardcoded to 0penBMC > > > > - TTY gets corrupted after a while and OpenBMC needs to be restarted to > > fix the issue (asus_power.sh reset) > > > > - Thermal management is for server, not workstation. That needs to be > > hacked to not have all fans, full speed, all the time since AST2050 > > controls thermal management when powered up. > > > > - REST API is exposed > > > > If you want the OpenBMC bitbake binary produced, let me know. > > > > > > u-bmc would be awesome. I opened this ticket for u-bmc's KGPE-D16: > > > > https://github.com/u-root/u-bmc/issues/133 > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Thierry/Insurgo > > > > On 10/13/19 1:11 AM, ron minnich wrote: > >> If you like running systemd on your bmc, the minimum 60 seconds > >> openbmc takes to boot, the complex, fragile, and long time it takes to > >> build from source, and the openbmc stack's need for giant memory > >> footprint and lots of nvme, stop reading. > >> > >> IF, OTOH, you like the idea of a very lightweight stack, which builds > >> in minutes not hours, and needs maybe 32M of memory to run, and boots > >> much faster, well, you might want to checkout u-bmc. > >> > >> https://github.com/u-root/u-bmc > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 2:00 PM Kinky Nekoboi > >> wrote: > >>> Debian 10. > >>> > >>> Thats perfect i have the nessary flashing tools. > >>> > >>> > >>> Am 12.10.19 um 22:57 schrieb Merlin Büge: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>>> Due to lib depenency hell i am not able to build openbmc myself atm. > >>>>> > >>>> Are you building on Debian (9 or 10)? > >>>> > >>>>> Does somebody has openbmc working for there kgpe-d16 system and can > >>>>> maybe send me a rom ? > >>>> I'll send you a separate email. > >>>> > >>>>> Can i flash the module with a Programmer and testclip or only > >>>>> internally? > >>>> Yes, a SOIC16 testclip and an SPI programmer like the CH341a will work. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Merlin > >>>> > >>>> > >>> ___ > >>> coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org > >> ___ > >> coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > >> To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org > > ___ > > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org > ___ > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: GRUB2 payload build error
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 17:17:23 + Naveen Chaudhary wrote: ... > Has anyone seen this error? I tried searching on google and few related but > different posts suggested that it maybe related to incorrect automake > files/headers being picked up, but I couldn't make it working. While I am > still searching on it, has anyone seen and fixed this earlier before? You're probably missing the pkg-config package, as suggested by: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8811381/possibly-undefined-macro-ac-msg-error For reference, when building GRUB2 I had to additionally install the following packages (on Debian): autoconf automake gettext autopoint pkg-config grub-common libfreetype6-dev unifont Regards, Merlin -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: OpenBMC on KGPE-D16, somebody has it working?
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 22:11:02 -0700 ron minnich wrote: > If you like running systemd on your bmc, the minimum 60 seconds > openbmc takes to boot, the complex, fragile, and long time it takes to > build from source, and the openbmc stack's need for giant memory > footprint and lots of nvme, stop reading. I don't like that, but... > IF, OTOH, you like the idea of a very lightweight stack, which builds > in minutes not hours, and needs maybe 32M of memory to run, and boots > much faster, well, you might want to checkout u-bmc. > > https://github.com/u-root/u-bmc ... as far as I can see, u-bmc doesn't support the AST2050 yet (the BMC chip used by the KGPE-D16). Merlin -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: OpenBMC on KGPE-D16, somebody has it working?
Hi, > Due to lib depenency hell i am not able to build openbmc myself atm. > Are you building on Debian (9 or 10)? > Does somebody has openbmc working for there kgpe-d16 system and can > maybe send me a rom ? I'll send you a separate email. > > Can i flash the module with a Programmer and testclip or only internally? Yes, a SOIC16 testclip and an SPI programmer like the CH341a will work. Merlin -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: KGPE-D16 maintainership
Hi, maybe related: With coreboot master (as of 20190916), 4.10 and 4.9 (compiled on Debian 10) I get kernel panics, too. Log and config attached. There is one Opteron 6328 installed in the KGPE-D16. I'm using the GRUB2 payload (which runs fine). I don't know what's causing this, I just want to provide another data point. coreboot 4.8 and 4.8.1 were not able to load my payload (same config). For reference, I also attached the logs of that. Finally, coreboot commit b1d26f0e92 from mid 2018 worked for me. Cheers, Merlin On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:22:23 +0200 Kinky Nekoboi wrote: > Highly appreciating that afford. > > Would like to mention Problems with Current Linux kernel with this Board. > > ( The SLUB Allocator is causing panics at boot for my builds) > > Pls see: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/coreboot@coreboot.org/msg53915.html > > > > > Hi all, > > we see a lot of attention around KGPE-D16 maintainership problems. > > After discussion with Thierry Laurion (Insurgo) at OSFC2019 3mdeb > > decided to help in maintaining that platform by organizing crowd > > founding campaign or getting founds in other ways (direct sponsors). > > > > Since we are based in Poland there is chance that even with small > > contribution from community we would be able to cover the costs. > > > > Ideal plan would be to have structure similar to what we maintain for > > PC Engines: > > https://pcengines.github.io/ > > Where we providing signed and reproducible binaries every month and > > keep as close to mainline as possible. Of course if development will > > be active, then there always would be delta of patches held in review. > > > > Unfortunately we don't have hardware. During OSFC 2019 Stefan left one > > board, but it was too late (and probably too expensive) for us to > > organize any shipment to Poland. We looking to have 2 mainboards one > > for development and one in our automated regression testing > > environment. Of course we will start even with just one. > > > > If anyone is willing to help in founding, sponsoring hardware or by > > code development and testing we would be very grateful. > > > > Please copy other people and share this post wherever is necessary to > > keep this platform alive. Positive feedback will help things rolling. > > > > Best Regards, > > ___ > coreboot mailing list -- > > coreboot@coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send > an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org -- Merlin Büge defconfig Description: Binary data cb4.10_linuxkernel_panic_log Description: Binary data cb4.8.1_payload_not_loaded_log Description: Binary data cb4.8_payload_not_loaded_log Description: Binary data ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: KGPE-D16 maintainership
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:19:42 +0200 Piotr Król wrote: > If anyone is willing to help in founding, sponsoring hardware or by > code development and testing we would be very grateful. Cool! Thank you for your effort. I don't have much funds available, but I could contribute a few spare 16 MiB flash chips I don't need anymore. Just write me an email if there's interest. Cheers, Merlin > > Please copy other people and share this post wherever is necessary to > keep this platform alive. Positive feedback will help things rolling. > > Best Regards, > - -- > Piotr Król > Embedded Systems Consultant > GPG: B2EE71E967AA9E4C > https://3mdeb.com | @3mdeb_com > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE4DCbLYWmfoRjKeNLsu5x6WeqnkwFAl2ApSoACgkQsu5x6Weq > nkw0XQ//WeO+U6VFcr6wsfCkv5qXnKVHb6XDXyEknhu7Q82HZ9Hx+0IiZ0+ikzVZ > oLU36euPwlHoRFh3HPm34DHeeYAZYzzsdc41+0MZJao152CGZJQwe+pqD/JeymOU > Jky+PhULeGKXt22ftbxte1ac82tRDFt//0Yc07qxP9G/CboZ8sjckKjfyfoy5PFm > 9jRFwdZUMbU42mU+NYLn/iXGWM/+mxC+ghncQBYwwGX1npr1r5gSiZS9ImoHFpgj > DQaaUQq2v8vS1uvYZ84vVEXeOljTkzFg7UyUZq3sSob8bA/a42rsgFMPVI6Bpc5R > lAEdhBZgMaD4jjO2GK+3zFSy32pBvK71tzwrdLjhb/bjjN1phHy2zbwTebFWlyiu > HQJ/+iu4uoTQj69GT9i7HLyngorh37GWFHKScDDzEASnSO868ELhlrt+yHwyY284 > EAe7dTOhOtfdxJOKcfdyUez5nwPZON4AXEVSvLWLUv4r+f82CG89f+LLg7rbZH5n > C0HnUOJas89xEvRhXChTBHnM9NBKSWpch5uZ5SbZHb/JCWBb26yT6Ua46H0STFRh > y+pWHc8AN76FQnWvpYer5F3hyVEX1+wAsi+RJMROFUejCn3lCl5ogAnT4ZRCqzo3 > 61Ao6dYmtYhaQ3JjZ+5bv3926ZwRjvr7i5t9bHf9THXCn1UobjY= > =wYUt > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > ___ > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: Web site: Reword project summary/description (was: Web site revamp)
Hi all. On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:13:42 +0200 Paul Menzel wrote: [...] > Basically, I agree with Timothy on the problem and the user confusion. > Puri.sm basically omits the FSP in all their blog posts, and the user > gets the impression, that the whole firmware is free software [1]. I too agree with Timothy for the most part. I regularly (albeit not very often) speak to people who have learned about coreboot and say that they want to flash their computer, mostly laptops, and are surprised when I tell them that it's not as open source as they think, i.e. vendor-provided binary blobs are necessary to boot their x86 platform. But, I don't think a split of the project would be beneficial here. There are eoungh project splits already in the open source world, and I'm sure coreboot at its heart still aims for a 100% open source boot experience. But maybe coreboot could improve in educating new end users about the current status regarding blobs required for platform bring-up. What about a new headline "Current blob status" on the "End Users" page? https://www.coreboot.org/users.html > I think, we can work on improving the text, and it’s great that > Patrick posted proposals. > > I believe, we should a agree on a few thinks first though. > > 1. I do not think, that the openness of the ISA plays any role for > coreboot, so it does not need to be mentioned on the main page, > and should be moved. I second that. > 2. Should the Intel ME and PSP be seen as independent devices like > the embedded controller? In my opinion it should be, and > therefore, also does not need to be mentioned on the main page. > (Unless somebody comes up with a succinct wording.) I also don't think mentioning the ME, PSP et al on the main page is a good idea, since they are architecture specific co-processors. But I don't think they should be considered completely independent devices anymore, since they have become more and more involved in platform bring-up over the last years, and well, coreboot is about exactly that: https://doc.coreboot.org/#purpose-of-coreboot It would be interesting to hear what the current core developers and maintainers of coreboot think about the status of these co-processors, and how much they fall into the scope of the coreboot project. > Maybe some native speaker finds better wording. I'm not a native speaker, but I want to share my two cents here... The current text reads as follows: "coreboot is an extended firmware platform that delivers a lightning fast and secure boot experience on modern computers and embedded systems. As an Open Source project it provides auditability and maximum control over technology." Idea 1) In the first sentence, instead of "coreboot is an extended firmware platform that delivers" write one of the following: "coreboot is an extended firmware platform that aims to provide" "coreboot is an extended firmware platform that strives to provide" "coreboot is an extended firmware platform with the goal to provide" ... and then make the changed text (e.g. "that aims to provide") a link to a page that describes the current blob situation, or to a new section of the "End Users" page like I proposed above. Idea 2) Leave the text as is and add a new simple one-line paragraph below it, which could read like "You can [read here] about the current open source status of coreboot." or "You can [read here] about the current use of blobs in coreboot." or something similar, again, linking to a place which explains the current use of blobs in coreboot. In any case, IMO it would be nice to keep it rather short and succinct as it is now, and not bloat it up too much. Cheers, Merlin -- Merlin Büge ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
[coreboot] Re: Coreboot doesn't POST on ASUS KCMA-D8
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 18:49:45 +0300 Ivan Ivanov wrote: > Hi Sean, libreboot is always behind coreboot regarding the commits, so > RAM compatibility could vary because of some breaking commit that > happened after the latest libreboot release but before the latest > coreboot. So of course it would break at the next libreboot release as > well. You could prevent this by searching for this commit using > dichotomy method (e.g. just 10 tries to find at the range of 2^10 = > 1024 commits) and tell us if you'd find it Hi all, I ran into the same issue, and I'd like to find the coreboot commit which introduces these problems. My RAM is: Hynix HMT31GR7CFR4A-PB (8 GB 2Rx4 PC3L-12800R). I just now realized that it's low power DIMMs, but it boots fine with libreboot, so that shouldn't be a problem. A have two DIMMs installed in the slots A2 and B2 (according to the manual), with one Opteron 4332HE installed. I managed to build an older coreboot revision around the time of the last libreboot release (which boots fine for me), but unfortunately it doesn't output anything on VGA / serial. I might make a few more tries tonight, or in some weeks when I have access to the machine again. For the record I attached the serial log when booting with current master; apparently there's a failure during DIMM training... Regards, Merlin > ___ > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org -- Merlin Büge kcma_boot0.cap Description: application/vnd.tcpdump.pcap ___ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
Re: [coreboot] Asus KGPE-D16 non-working S3 suspend with Qubes 4
Hi, as I currently have a D16 right next to me, I thought I'd just test it, too. This is with coreboot-4.8-660-gb1d26f0e92. S3 seems to be working somehow, but I have to press the power button to make it resume - it doesn't react on (USB keyboard) key presses. Also it takes about one minute to resume, with 8x 8GB RAM, single CPU. Just in case it helps somehow... See the attached coreboot log. And BTW, yes, the D16 has a serial port exposed at the rear panel. Kind Regards, Merlin defconfig: CONFIG_USE_OPTION_TABLE=y CONFIG_VENDOR_ASUS=y CONFIG_BOARD_ASUS_KGPE_D16=y CONFIG_COREBOOT_ROMSIZE_KB_16384=y CONFIG_PAYLOAD_GRUB2=y CONFIG_GRUB2_EXTRA_MODULES="cat" CONFIG_GRUB2_INCLUDE_RUNTIME_CONFIG_FILE=y CONFIG_COREINFO_SECONDARY_PAYLOAD=y CONFIG_MEMTEST_SECONDARY_PAYLOAD=y CONFIG_NVRAMCUI_SECONDARY_PAYLOAD=y On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:32:04 + petecb via coreboot wrote: > Hi, > > I have not been able to get S3 suspend to work with this board when > using Qubes 4. It's running coreboot v4.6 with the default CMOS > options. It appears to go into suspend ok but when I try to resume > the system does not respond to keyboard or mouse input and pressing > the powerbutton results in what appears to be a fresh cold-boot. > > Does anyone know whether there is a specific coreboot/cmos option I > could be missing or if it is a Qubes configuration issue? > > Kind regards, > > Pete -- Merlin Büge coreboot_d16_s3_debug_01.log.gz Description: application/gzip -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
[coreboot] FYI: Raptor's new POWER9-based "Blackbird" open for pre-order
Hi all, Just for your interest, there's a new POWER9-based mainboard from Raptor called "Blackbird", with a much lower price point than the TalosII which seems to be more desktop class than server oriented: https://secure.raptorcs.com/content/BK1MB1/intro.html There's also a 4-core and an 8-core bundle: https://secure.raptorcs.com/content/BK1B01/purchase.html https://secure.raptorcs.com/content/BK1B02/purchase.html This could make for a nice coreboot target, since so much documentation is open, and since it shares the open source spirit with coreboot... Documentation is available on the wiki: https://wiki.raptorcs.com/wiki/Main_Page Cheers, Merlin PS: I know this isn't fully on-topic, so I hope nobody minds me sharing it here. PPS: There's a special pricing going on until monday midnight! -- Merlin Büge -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Source code for "Intel Firmware"
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 16:24:15 -0700 ron minnich wrote: > There are people on this list who know better than I what the most > "open" one is. > > Anyone out there have some advice? These are interesting: Samsung Chromebook Plus (based on RK3399, not available in EU) and Asus Chromebook R13 "ECC'17: Run upstream coreboot on an ARM Chromebook" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7_9okzPeHo Cheers, Merlin > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 3:17 PM Andrew Luke Nesbit < > ullbek...@andrewnesbit.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6 Oct 2018, at 22:17, ron minnich wrote: > > > > It depends on what you mean by fully. If there is a so-called Mask > > ROM (i.e. initial boot program that's part of the chip itself, not > > replaceable, you can disassemble it however) and the rest of the > > chip is fully open, does that count? > > > > > > That's a good start. In my experience, these are what I've mostly > > seen. > > > > Ideally I mean one where the boot loader (and payload?) are not > > proprietary. Or that an open source boot loader could be used, > > preferably without added blobs. > > > > For my money the ARM chromebooks are still one of the best bets out > > there for messing about with ARM firmware. > > > > > > Yes, I've been looking at getting one for this very purpose, > > especially as it's already a whole, usable system. Have you any > > particular recommendations? > > > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 12:30 PM Andrew Luke Nesbit < > > ullbek...@andrewnesbit.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> > On 6 Oct 2018, at 17:42, ron minnich wrote: > >> > > >> [...] > >> > > >> > if you really want 100% open, the only real options at this > >> > point are > >> power 9, RISCV and some ARM CPUs. > >> > >> Ron, thanks for your reasoned reply and the contextual > >> background. I believe this is important when embarking on any > >> project with a legacy. > >> > >> I know of libre-friendly POWER9 and RISC-V options. For example, > >> I am currently learning my way around the Talos II (which is > >> excellent). ARM-based systems have been elusive to me. > >> > >> Could you please give some examples of fully libre-friendly > >> ARM-based boards or systems? Thanks!! > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Andrew > >> > > -- Merlin Büge -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] HV121WX4-120 screen for X200
Hey, I also have that panel in my X200 and it's working fine here. Don't remember if it worked with stock BIOS, but the latest libreboot release (20160907) is working fine. I will also try latest coreboot in the next weeks, and will report back if I experience strange behaviour. For now it works quite stable (compared to what I've heard), I get random hangs about 10 times a year with nearly constant uptime. I also replaced the panel's CCFL with an LED stripe and therefore have a modified version of the LED board (where the CCFL inverter was located), but I'm very sure the panel worked fine before that modification. Regards, Merlin On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 00:34:35 +0200 Piotr Kubaj via coreboot wrote: > Hi, > > I just wanted to share my experience of using alternative screens for > ThinkPad X200 (HV121WX4-120) with coreboot. > > After fitting the screen, it became apparent that something is wrong. > Having turned on the X200, it ran happily for about 1 minute, then > the screen just powered off. It didn't matter whether I stayed in > SeaBIOS, or just booted my OS. And when the screen powered off, I > could awake it after several minutes, but only for another minute. > Apart from that, the laptop worked. > > nico_h from IRC helped me (thank you!) by providing alternative > values for devicetree, which could make the screen work orderly. > Well, it did work better, but still wasn't stable (it worked for > 10-20 minutes, once I even got it to 2 hours). > > Still, that was a huge difference. I tried to experiment a little > with it and set some crazy values: register > "gpu_panel_power_up_delay" = "600" # T1+T2: 25ms register > "gpu_panel_power_down_delay" = "3000" # T3:25ms register > "gpu_panel_power_backlight_on_delay" = "500" # T5: 250ms register > "gpu_panel_power_backlight_off_delay" = "2500" # Tx: 250ms register > "gpu_panel_power_cycle_delay" = "255" # T4: 200ms > > After that, things seem to work fine. > > I hope someone finds it useful if they replace their X200's screen > with alternative one. > > Again thanks to Nico for help! > -- Merlin Büge -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] [RFH] Native AMD fam10-15 support
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:45:49 +0300 Kyösti Mälkki wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, taii...@gmx.com > wrote: > > On 06/13/2018 04:12 PM, Kyösti Mälkki wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> Now that we wiped out K8, I'd like to put my eyes on fam10-15 > >> boards. > > What exactly do you mean by wiped out? > > > >> > >> Couple questions for board owners: > >> > >> First, about asus/kcma-d8 and asus/kgpe-d16: Do these have working > >> S3 support? I remember rumours they originally worked at some > >> point, but regressed during the rebase / upstream process. Anyone > >> willing to bisect/fix it if necessary? > >> > > > > I have a D16 with v4.6 that I regularly use suspend with and it > > works absolutely fine - I can also suspend a host featuring a guest > > with IOMMU graphics and then resume that host later on and continue > > playing video games on the guest. > > So you are committed to bisect this and make it work on current > master, thank you. > > > > > I again state my for-some-reason controversial opinion that at this > > rate there will soon be no non-development boards in coreboot due > > to the choices of the current leadership in determining standards. > > I hear you and weigh your opinion according to the number of commits I > can recognize you have authored on the repo. I just want to mention: Generally, helping out with documentation and (especially) code review and even ordinary users who report bugs are also a value-add to the coreboot project. > > Kyösti > -- Merlin Büge -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] BIOS upgrade before flashing coreboot
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 12:05:34 +0200 Akendo wrote: > Hey everyone, > > currently I working on a x220 to flash coreboot onto it. I notice that > my x220 has a current BIOS version from 2011 (1.24 UEFI/BIOS and > 1.13 ECP). > > Within the change-log[0] variates updates and fixes are stated. > Including changes to the ME engine. Within many documentation part of > coreboot, it's stated, that the ME part can't be written. Here my > question: Should I update the BIOS to the latest release before > flashing coreboot onto it? A little hint: The BIOS update might also be updating the EC = Embedded Controller containing various fixes / improvements. E.g. on the X200 it is recommended to upgrade to the latest stock BIOS before flashing coreboot, which brings improvements in battery handling IIRC. > > There is for example this note: > > > If the UEFI BIOS has been updated to version 1.43 or higher, it is > > no longer able to roll back to the version before 1.43 for security > > improvement. > > > Could this cause problems? For example the CVE-2017-5715 (Spectre) > would be fixed. I expect them to run role out the microcode update > from Intel... so might be no problem to coreboot, right? > > > best regards, > akendo > > [0]https://download.lenovo.com/pccbbs/mobiles/8duj29us.txt -- Merlin Büge -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Problem in building the toolchain with gcc-8.1
> I had the same problem with compiling under Archlinux. I think > gcc-8.1 is too new for coreboot (currently). Debian uses an older > version of gcc and works fine. Below are a couple suggestions to try. > * See if you can install and use gcc6 from the AUR > * Install docker and then try using coreboot-sdk from docker hub Another option I went with (assuming Archlinux): https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd-nspawn#Create_a_Debian_or_Ubuntu_environment In short: pacman -S debootstrap debian-archive-keyring cd /var/lib/machines mkdir debian_build (if you're on btrfs, instead do 'btrfs sub create debian_build') debootstrap stable ./debian_build https://deb.debian.org/debian/ systemd-nspawn -D ./debian_build passwd logout systemd-nspawn -bD ./debian_build -> adjust /etc/apt/sources.list I had the same problem a few weeks ago when compiling coreboot for the first time (now it worked!) :) -- Merlin Büge -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Microcode updates for slightly older intel CPU's re: meltdown/spectre
> So you are saying that sandy and ivybridge have spectre microcode > updates? > > I hate how unclear intel is about this. https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/03/microcode-update-guidance.pdf -- Merlin Büge -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] I want to be a contributor(Cloud Dai)
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:02:02 +0800 戴，曉政 via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote: > Dear Taiidan, > > I just want to install and simply compile correboot at the current > stage because I am a junior develop of coreboot. I will buy a ASUS > KGPE-D16 mainboard from auction website after I restore my > development environment. Thank you for your response. I have two > question finally. > 1. Does BIOS rom of KGPE-D16 be removable? The BIOS (SPI) flash chip on the KGPE-D16 is socketed, so yes it is removable. If you plan to swap it, I highly recommend a dedicated DIP extractor for it! Something like this: https://lut.im/K9hQJgJbKk/gR8wUUwDwd7pjBMu.JPG > 2. Does architecture of KGPE-D16 be pre-PSP or not? Yes, it is pre-PSP. Good luck! > > > > > Dear Taiidan, > > > > I have read letter from Kyosti, he said ?AGESA family15 boards and > > chipset vendorcode for older than Trinity has been/will be removed > > on 4.7 release?. In this case, whether I still can >use H8SCM for > > my first coreboot mainboard or not? > >If you want to port coreboot it is a good board, to have as a > >functional device no. > > And I will try to port KGPE-D16 after I complete porting of H8SCM > > with coreboot. In addition, I apologize again for my poor English. > >Porting is creating the code base for a motherboard. > >Installing coreboot is simply compiling and installing, I am not > >sure which you want? The H8SCM needs a port whereas the KGPE-D16 is > >fully functional and a great example of coreboot ports. > > > > --- > Avast 防毒軟體已檢查此封電子郵件的病毒。 > https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Microcode updates for slightly older intel CPU's re: meltdown/spectre
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:22:48 -0500 "taii...@gmx.com" <taii...@gmx.com> wrote: > On 01/11/2018 05:05 AM, Nico Huber wrote: > > > you seem to be misinformed about the G505s. There is no open-source > > gfx init for AMD (not in firmware, not in the OS), so within your > > require- ments it's not usable as a laptop. > I forgot to include my usual suffix mentioning that blobs are > required for video (and power management) > > I believe it is still much better than the C2D laptops in terms of > security despite the video blob as it has an IOMMU [1] and no ME/PSP. > [1] with the high end quad core CPU option > >> (as the previous C2D/C2Q's > >> such as the X200 are now permanently insecure without intervention > >> from intel apparently) > > It depends on the software you run. Please read more about Meltdown > > and Spectre. When you understood it, you can still start to worry. > > > >> At this point even a massive performance loss is better than > >> having to throw out so much now-useless hardware. > > Yes? and that can be accomplished without microcode updates, AFAIK. > I was and still am under the impression that fixing both issue > classes requires microcode updates, can you link to a better > explanation? https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/01/Intel-Analysis-of-Speculative-Execution-Side-Channels.pdf > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Microcode updates for slightly older intel CPU's re: meltdown/spectre
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 21:55:18 -0500 "taii...@gmx.com" <taii...@gmx.com> wrote: > I am curious of any intel insiders know if there will be microcode > updates released for older intel CPU's (ex: sandy/ivybridge) and > failing that, what can be done in regards to securing them from > meltdown/spectre. Not an Intel insider, but here is a list from Lenovo listing affected products and when microcode updates will be available addressing Spectre v2: https://support.lenovo.com/de/en/solutions/len-18282 X230 is scheduled for 2/2/2018. I don't know about the X200, but I doubt there will be further microcede updates :/ But actually I don't know. For meltdown, running the latest kernel should be sufficient I guess, since it has the KPTI patches. > > I believe this is a relevant coreboot topic considering how many > coreboot boards have these and older CPU'swithout a fix there > will be only one coreboot compatible laptop with open source hardware > initiation that is remotely secure (lenovo g505s as has a pre-PSP AMD > CPU) and theoretically owner controllable (as the previous C2D/C2Q's > such as the X200 are now permanently insecure without intervention > from intel apparently) > > At this point even a massive performance loss is better than having > to throw out so much now-useless hardware. > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Owner-controlled POWER9 Talos II [was: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode]
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 23:17:19 -0400 "taii...@gmx.com" <taii...@gmx.com> wrote: > I am curious as to how Raptor got the funding for TALOS this time > around, have major corporations finally seen the light and ordered > some :D? Here's some information on it: https://www.raptorcs.com/blog/08212017001.php See question " How did you bring the Talos™ product line to a more affordable price point? " Regards, Merlin > > I also want to know as to what is wrong with Intel's NICs so that I > can share it with others (and not buy them in the future) - is it > just simply the fact that they are an anti-computing-freedom company? > or is there a sneaky backdoor? > > > I am so incredibly happy that we at long last have an off the shelf > ultra high performance secure and owner controlled product, raptor > has done what many other companies said wasn't possible AND made it > reasonably priced for the level of juice you get - serious kudos to > everyone involved in bringing talos to life <3 > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:09:51 -0400 "taii...@gmx.com" <taii...@gmx.com> wrote: > On 08/30/2017 03:28 PM, Timothy Pearson wrote: > > >> POWER9 workstations are already coming on the market: > >> > >> https://raptorcs.com/TALOSII/ > >> > >> Note that IBM selling similar machines directly would likely be > >> more expensive, not less, based on POWER8 price comparisons > >> between IBM and other vendors. People purchase IBM branded > >> products for extreme reliability, not to get cheap equipment... > Damn that is sick as hell! you guys actually pulled it off! how did > you get the funding? how have I not heard about this before? Yeah, I wonder why it was not announced on this list. Although not directly coreboot related, there probably is strong interest here within this community. There is also a channel on freenode: #talos-workstation >From what I've heard, pre-orders will close very soon, and it's unknown if there will be a second production run of the boards... Timothy, maybe you could shed some light on it? Cheers, Merlin > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Where do I get cables that can fit a SOIC8 clip?
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:24:59 +0100 (CET) <i1w5d7gf38...@tutanota.com> wrote: > There are none cables that just fit. You have to solder (like its > been done by chinese workers on the ready ones you can get). You can > get soic8 and soic16 presoldered. For example you can get the 16 with > all 16 pins soldered here: www.ebay.com/itm/321899798260 Or soldered > to fit on normal 8-pin flasher (the useless pins are simply not > beeing soldered): www.ebay.com/itm/142241743115 Or get Pomona clips (5250 and 5252), then the dupont cables will fit. But imo soldering is more reliable, which is good, because when flashing externally there are quite some things which can cause problems. > > > 7. Mar 2017 09:26 by taii...@gmx.com: > > > > Thanks martin but the clip I have needs the smaller cables like the > > ones in this photo as they didn't space the connectors enough for > > dupont cables. > > > > https://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1jVupNVXOXpXXq6xXFXXXm/SOIC8-SOP8-Test-Clip-For-EEPROM-93CXX.jpg_220x220.jpg > > https://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/SOP16-SOIC16-Flash-Chip-Test-Clips-With-Wires-BIOS-Programming-Adapter/1390203_32661448957.html> > > > > > > -- > > coreboot mailing list: > coreboot@coreboot.org > > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Libreboot X220 pre-order from Minifree - libre firmware preinstalled
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 19:26:22 +0100 Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschae...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 08:24:49PM -0500, taii...@gmx.com wrote: > [...] > > I will be greatly impressed if the 30 minute bullshit is somehow > > bypassed. > > I guess you haven't seen Nicola Corna's recent work on the me_cleaner > tool, then: > > * https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/coreboot.git/tree/util/me_cleaner > * https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/How-does-it-work? > > > Jonathan He probably has. There's currently no known way to *completely* disable the ME on Sandy/Ivy Bridge Thinkpads without the 30 minutes limit. -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] There are G34 Opteron 6287SE's on ebay (best g34 cpu and very rare)
By the way, there are also Opteron 6276's (16C 2,3GHz) for 49,- EUR each from two german sellers. On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:45:36 -0500 "taii...@gmx.com" <taii...@gmx.com> wrote: > I thought people might want to know: > > There's three opteron 6287SE's on ebay for $300 each and the seller > also has best offer, they are a foreign seller but the ebay money > back guarantee applies. > > It is the fastest g34 cpu made and apparently it was only ever sold > to a small amount of OEM's so it is very rare. > > Btw I heard most enterprise hardware usually goes for half of list if > you want to try to get it for $150 or w/e. > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Does the 62xx Series Opteron work *securely* without microcode?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:26:56 -0600 Timothy Pearson <tpear...@raptorengineering.com> wrote: > > Core 2 duo is more than a decade old and I think that it should be > > good enough for a lot of tasks. > > > > Andrés > > > > Something to think about: have you tried developing modern software on > that Core 2 Duo? Are you OK with only having hardware that can > consume software (libre or not) that was created (compiled) on more > powerful, non-free systems? I think the need for libre hardware platforms in the range of a Core 2 Duo is as strong as the need for libre platforms capable of compiling big software projects. The point you raise is very important(!), however just because you cannot compile big software projects on e.g. C2D Penryn doesn't mean that there is no need for them. I have the impression that this is sometimes forgotten when reading discussions about libre hardware for general purpose computing. Regards, Merlin -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Does the 62xx Series Opteron work *securely* without microcode?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:26:56 -0600 Timothy Pearson <tpear...@raptorengineering.com> wrote: > > Core 2 duo is more than a decade old and I think that it should be > > good enough for a lot of tasks. > > > > Andrés > > > > Something to think about: have you tried developing modern software on > that Core 2 Duo? Are you OK with only having hardware that can > consume software (libre or not) that was created (compiled) on more > powerful, non-free systems? I think the need for libre hardware platforms in the range of a Core 2 Duo is as strong as the need for libre platforms capable of compiling big software projects. The point you raise is very important(!), however just because you cannot compile big software projects on e.g. C2D Penryn doesn't mean that there is no need for them. I have the impression that this is sometimes forgotten when reading discussions about libre hardware for general purpose computing. Regards, Merlin -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] ASUS KCMA-D8 workstation board port offer
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:51:53 -0600 Timothy Pearson <tpear...@raptorengineering.com> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/19/2017 08:48 PM, Merlin Büge wrote: > >> But I have a problem with all that badmouthing of her I recently > >> encountered, on this somewhat miscarried article on Phoronix [0], > >> on > >> #librecore, and #libreboot. I mean, I'm also annoyed of the GNU/FSF > >> drama and so on, but that's no reason to personally offend her (no > >> matter how subtle), or dragging libreboot through the mire. > > > >> Note that this is no direct response to your initial mail. I just > >> wanted to tell people, before they are reading stuff like the > >> article linked above: > > Fair enough. I misinterpreted your intent, my apologies. > > >>>> So, before you make up your mind, also listen to the other side. > > > > > >> How comes that not everyone can just play nice with each other..? > > > >> That makes me sad. > Same here. Let's refocus on the project and leave this behind. All > that's really changed is that Raptor Engineering has effectively > donated a complete port for the KCMA-D8 (CPU, RAM, and southbridge) > to the project, as well as getting it upstreamed. I think that's > quite enough for the x86 side for a few years...time to work on > POWER! ;-) Thank you. =) > - -- > Timothy Pearson > Raptor Engineering > +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) > +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) > https://www.raptorengineering.com > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1 > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYgXtGAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbVh4IAL1eIM/CShSC/NFnjBYourxz > i/95IdXw4l3hT7asgQSoH3MSR7pkIJLUnp/L0TiiFrY0h3SPiLKgJVX5RiCbxNug > dnbwvkEmrXlQ5bih4Z4KGJa2b91wd2aoLtIr15+63hq2HWVGVzloWl1n8cx04DV9 > 7p7CIh0e13N9E6sYT93gCkbM25Q36uMt15ugMDti69KcMuOP3nJueb1PfTVfkBhj > umlIiaVJ+qZjaBsELk3fm0J5V+xDxReKlhmace895IwSgXmX2f5myg5aA4rMphWm > vjKNlG3AfuXOaW35GMHCZAupCEtAHgy9DjfpK8z7RAaXr+iobCFPiCD3+8bch1o= > =CwCY > -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] ASUS KCMA-D8 workstation board port offer
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:38:34 -0600 Timothy Pearson <tpear...@raptorengineering.com> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/19/2017 07:15 PM, Merlin Büge wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:03 -0600 > > Timothy Pearson <tpear...@raptorengineering.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Sorry to revive an old thread, but as many of you are aware > >> Minifree (Leah Rowe) contracted with us to port the KCMA-D8 and > >> release it. We performed this work and the KCMA-D8 continues to > >> operate, however Minifree has decided not to pay their contract on > >> this work. We strongly recommend that no person do any business > >> with Minifree or its founder Leah Rowe, as they do not honor their > >> legally binding contracts. > > > > > > I see that my mail does belong to this list as little as this ^ > > > > However, I just want to remind you folks that there's always two > > sides to a story. I've seen a lot of badmouthing of Leah, > > especially the last few hours in IRC etc... questionable, to say > > the least. > > > > So, before you make up your mind, also listen to the other side. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Merlin > > Since you state that the criticism is questionable, can you please > indicate where you disagree with said criticism? As you say there are > two sides to any story, and I have not presented a clear picture of > our side for the sake of brevity and not wanting to drag the list > along for the ride. I feel quite uncomfortable discussing this here, not because it's public, but because it's rather off-topic. Also I don't want to quote freenode logs here. I have no problem with (fair) criticism of how Leah is driving the libreboot project, and that she still did not pay for the KCMA-D8 port is clearly morally questionable. But I have a problem with all that badmouthing of her I recently encountered, on this somewhat miscarried article on Phoronix [0], on #librecore, and #libreboot. I mean, I'm also annoyed of the GNU/FSF drama and so on, but that's no reason to personally offend her (no matter how subtle), or dragging libreboot through the mire. Note that this is no direct response to your initial mail. I just wanted to tell people, before they are reading stuff like the article linked above: > > So, before you make up your mind, also listen to the other side. How comes that not everyone can just play nice with each other..? That makes me sad. Merlin [0] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=Librecore-Formation > > It comes down to a simple contract non-payment; no dissatisfaction > with our work was registered until today when I was informed that the > KCMA-D8 contract would not be paid. These contracts were originally > signed back in 2015 and the goal was to make all of these systems > available for sale to the community; functional sources were given to > Rowe early 2016 but sadly Minifree did not list them for sale until > late 2016. By that time the market had shifted further and, > partially due to the ongoing controversy regarding Libreboot and the > FSF, we observed a very public refusal to support Minifree further. > Instead of honoring the debt incurred as part of this business > opportunity, Rowe simply decided to walk away from it. > > Rowe also does not have the knowledge or authority required to comment > on our internal development processes regarding the KCMA-D8, including > time taken, effort expended, and overall cost. The KCMA-D8 is not a > trivial port in the sense of, for instance, the T400 to T500 > conversion; a quick glance at the coreboot GIT repository, noting the > logs referring to the C32 socket (the socket used on the KCMA-D8), > will indicate that there was DDR3 initialization work required to get > the KCMA-D8 operational and stabilized, in addition to handling the > new layout and modified components of the mainboard itself. Our > quote was fully in line with industry standards for the type of work > performed. > > I don't want to go into further detail on this list; this is our side > and really all you need to know. > > - -- > Timothy Pearson > Raptor Engineering > +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) > +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) > https://www.raptorengineering.com > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1 > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYgWoYAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbibsH/03TbzMfvxZtDh1xDwAZ5oTR > JEl7pU+ooyQb20yIl7IzokBt8ew2Ch2PDEQY3D7h2CE7tS/Wzpqv5U1D4GRHMviI > ieZjIgh/FjjMP8XOR+DJLvmMg2/mQUyvnc90kQd1tJ8z7sBd5sb7Z06w3aOQEPwP > CaXchg2gow6+Jkm69KfG3c3BJfpTyFCtaOW4d1mQKSWrGlIUNHwUqnXgq5rWjjND > 1qTr/oA6vCiBSnUDd9fZg+4sLW3u/KtiAfNaIPmP9u/mu8/nbw2zPtillrkIYbeA > XvR4nuWlRNgouycnZKReTRPusSkq5y/00sxAK6soEZmap0KS4l4syjEMZDOgoJA= > =uAu9 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] ASUS KCMA-D8 workstation board port offer
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:03 -0600 Timothy Pearson <tpear...@raptorengineering.com> wrote: > Sorry to revive an old thread, but as many of you are aware Minifree > (Leah Rowe) contracted with us to port the KCMA-D8 and release it. We > performed this work and the KCMA-D8 continues to operate, however > Minifree has decided not to pay their contract on this work. We > strongly recommend that no person do any business with Minifree or its > founder Leah Rowe, as they do not honor their legally binding > contracts. I see that my mail does belong to this list as little as this ^ However, I just want to remind you folks that there's always two sides to a story. I've seen a lot of badmouthing of Leah, especially the last few hours in IRC etc... questionable, to say the least. So, before you make up your mind, also listen to the other side. Thanks, Merlin > - -- > Timothy Pearson > Raptor Engineering > +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) > +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) > https://www.raptorengineering.com > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1 > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYgP4nAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbIv4H/2LVc83j2TvIDXW5owce6X94 > SUwbyLhAlAyrqSmrOwwmaam+w85APVSW8+fZWXsNW76yWnuHsYirr5va5XWUTkDm > egPZDnWz1W/mg35GTcnQe2aQNZpQ6Q7VX5WiVgBHxtmfRbu/mswQyP3LAqO7vIhh > pheQdSUyRoYomqMkhx7o3t2EtDti4oR3L3AqykvxhuszFhkQNrtRj4vFyLBy3j6/ > io5xeE3QKObSvC2waVkGq3cJzOGzfgtZb3Nwqrt6NZl4Cz5GMQM5MBV4jx4gGcO5 > rzRFbXZm/zOdICOc4c45n5B4P/kUz/AmkB6hVEgJjQHQS+p93sZ5xLVJlzqdDRk= > =RcgR > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Proposal: "Freedom level" field for boards supported by coreboot
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:11:21 -0800 Julius Werner <jwer...@chromium.org> wrote: > I think it's fair to penalize boards for this, but not as hard as for > other components. The machine is still perfectly useable with text > mode or software rendering. I would say this is way less severe than a > non-free EC (which essentially means you can't trust your keyboard), > for example. It should rank somewhere among the low inconveniences, > maybe similar to a non-free WiFi chip. Couldn't one just use a separate USB keyboard to circumvent that? > >> A. Everything free. > >> B. Non-essential component (e.g. GPS sensor) requiring proprietary > >> firmware. C. Network component (e.g. WiFi) requiring proprietary > >> firmware if it can be bypassed (e.g. USB, expansion card). > >> D. Input/output-sniffing component (pointing device, keyboard, > >> display, audio) requiring proprietary firmware if it can be > >> bypassed, or CPU requiring microcode if it can be bypassed (e.g. > >> just using factory ROM code). > >> E. CPU or equivalently privileged processor requiring non-resident > >> proprietary boot firmware. > >> F. Network component requiring proprietary firmware that cannot be > >> bypassed (e.g. no USB ports). > >> G. Input/output-sniffing component requiring proprietary firmware > >> that cannot be bypassed, or CPU requiring microcode that cannot be > >> bypassed. > >> H. CPU or equivalently privileged processor requiring resident > >> proprietary firmware (e.g. Intel ME, Qualcomm TrustZone). > > > > My concern is mainly the number of levels. If we make this too > > much of a smooth gradient type thing people won't really understand > > just how bad G and H really are. > > Okay, sure... colors or naming could make that more clear, or just > squash some of these categories together. I didn't really want to > exemplify the granularity here, just how I think different non-free > components should be weighted against each other to fairly represent > the risk to the user. I like how most boards (with ME & Co.) would just get an 'H' :) > We could also try a system of points that get added together to reach > a certain category (e.g. proprietary microcode is worth 5 malus > points, proprietary WiFi could be 2, and resident proprietary firmware > with full access short-circuits to the lowest category). Personally, I like the category-based approach more, as I assume most people would bother less about how many points their hardware scores, instead of in what "freedom" or "security" category their hardware is classified. I think the category approach pulls people more towards libre-friendly hardware. Btw, great effort and interesting discussion :) Regards, Merlin > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Fund a TALOS Secure Workstation as coreboot build system
Everyone, > We would like to see $20k USD from the community; we'll match (and > actually slightly exceed) that internally to get the port completed > and production qualified. From what I understand this amount is very > close to what had been allocated originally for a Talos coreboot > build server; the BMC work would allow more KGPE-D16 systems to be > used to host pieces of coreboot worldwide. What do you think? It's not a Talos Workstation, of course, but it would still be a great step forward, having a performant board like the D8/D16 running fully libre soft- and firmware with a libre remote management option. It seems like the D16 might become a long runner for quite some people, maybe like the libreboot-compatible GM45 platforms (X200, T400, T500), so probably this work would be of great benefit! What do you think would be a good way to collect interest? The same way we were collecting pledges for a Talos build server? How could we make pledging for this easily accessible to non mailing list members? We could set up a very simple webpage for that, maybe with an email address people can write to if they are willing to financially support the BMC porting. Or just link to the mailing list thread? Is someone (who is more involved in the community than me) willing to coordinate gathering pledges, like taking them via email and keeping a list of them? Thank you, Merlin > > As an added bonus, the BMC work would be directly applicable to the > KGPE-D16's little sister, the KCMA-D8. The same (or slightly > modified) BMC firmware should work on both machines. > > Thanks! > > - -- > Timothy Pearson > Raptor Engineering > +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) > +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) > https://www.raptorengineering.com > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1 > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYfp1mAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbLZgH/jS05CjmnfIB08X9YeR6qiPo > mZn1j0QkuEa8bIVQG6DCer405gywPJzaYd3zlahTPBjG2D8LM8F2YEp/KXvB+eId > kuV8SYqq2W9tTMrrCP4m/5wbfEhku1SpU8j0kEnCD14UCNjjEmd2eJ2ZK6rHJf9p > YvrGXyzPHBl3fNJaTEoLCGEzhEozX8M4rYdcKpLEbQZXWmJe9r94TXxMD5TIWlkZ > TPhUsVdrPLpEMmzDSa8EOB3lGx9bMTR+GplKpAHnKg0+ZbeerEePyBnd4rzTjRAj > Pk/iOvWWwdtYj1W5eIkCHtwsj4coyos1Pjq6opNfNlJQSbvKCZ3kH90TTV2Binc= > =CT6t > -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Fund a TALOS Secure Workstation as coreboot build system
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:24:16 -0600 Timothy Pearson <tpear...@raptorengineering.com> wrote: > Regarding the BMC work, we're looking to enable a fully libre BMC on > the KGPE-D16. This is a complex process involving significant reverse > engineering efforts, writing new kernel drivers for the BMC, etc. > With the BMC enabled, proper fan control can be established on the > KGPE-D16, in addition to remote console access and of course remote > power on / power off / reset functionality. > > If this work can be funded, Raptor would chip in a matching amount to > lower the costs to the community; essentially we're looking to fund > half of the work internally but cannot justify the full cost of the > work as the sole sponsor. Every little bit helps, so even if you can > only chip in $100 please consider doing so. Do you think running a crowdfunding campaign again would help getting this funded / collecting donations? I don't know if you have to pay any fees for the various platforms out there, but I bet there are some for which you don't have to pay much. I'm not thinking of a campaign like the Talos one, I just think it would be useful to keep track on how many people already donated, and how much is still missing to meet the goal. With 'useful' I mean it'd probably boost donations, in contrast to accepting donations quietly. So no big updates etc., just using their infrastructure for collecting donations. But after all, I've no idea about R etc. :P If this is not too straight forward, may I ask of how much of community support you are thinking? Thank you, Merlin > > Thanks! > > - -- > Timothy Pearson > Raptor Engineering > +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) > +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) > https://www.raptorengineering.com > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1 > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYfn1uAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbTV4H+QHqUiszRRI7kp5Qd0p/uI7G > tOyL32CzMrUqekDj+A/V1gC5lYtQbjN6WzcMrBFQ9lvJrQy/GxFoRn0cHaZtteya > MmqugPSGotjARM2quWCkbIdhNGgyzKWr+BHwpImH9SyiJ0nozl4RDGDfqhqdPI3+ > 7nt4TAc54Kq9yhUlP9XLpYq6Gi67sYt0qgVXyNhekiT4a7HrG+0aLtu8mzOVMktc > /oIqnhHlZQnX6LDvNkKJkifanrjL5NXigEEB/iwaFW56Pm9avs07pQeU0wnJjL4G > pcNKQ7/4j2opEn//bBqofU3u60thdbxb16O3aBcAJTkUDFtNjeX0VNPNb56/5HQ= > =uc5x > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Offering Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 for porting
Hi Renze, > I just received a message from Idwer Vollering that there is no > raminit code available yet. Since I am not at the level where I can > write raminit code without proper documentation (which isn't > available as well) I won't be able to port coreboot to your board. > Sorry! no problem ;) Thanks for pointing this out Idwer! I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle then, writing raminit without documentation sounds hard. If anybody wants to give it a try nevertheless, feel free to contact me. Regards, Merlin On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:31:35 +0100 Renze Nicolai <re...@rnplus.nl> wrote: > Hello Merlin, > > I just received a message from Idwer Vollering that there is no > raminit code available yet. Since I am not at the level where I can > write raminit code without proper documentation (which isn't > available as well) I won't be able to port coreboot to your board. > Sorry! > > Hopefully you will find someone else who can! > > Greetings, > Renze > > On vr, 2016-12-16 at 14:09 +0100, Merlin Büge wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > Taiidan and Renze, thank you for your responses. > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 03:46:07 +0100 > > Renze Nicolai <re...@rnplus.nl> wrote: > > > I am interested in porting Coreboot to your GA-890FXA-UD5. > > > A month ago I succesfully ported coreboot to my MS-7721 > > > (FM2-A75MA-E35) motherboard and having a go at porting another AMD > > > board to coreboot would be a good opportunity for me to learn more > > > about coreboot. > > > > That sounds good. I'd love to try it myself, but at the moment I > > don't > > feel like I have enough time for it. I'm also quite new to coreboot > > and > > have plenty to learn about it, so I guess I should start somewhere > > else. > > > > > Since I can not guarantee that I will succeed. Therefore I propose > > > that in case of failure the provided hardware will be returned to > > > you > > > so that you can find someone else to give it a go. > > > > > > If you want me to work on porting coreboot to your board we should > > > work out the details privately. Please contact me directly > > > (re...@rnplus.nl). > > > > Sure! I'll write you an email today. > > > > > Can someone more experienced please confirm that coreboot has > > > support > > > for the AMD 890FX northbridge, the AMD SB850 southbridge and the > > > ITE > > > IT8720 superio chip? > > > > I'm not sure, but I found this: > > https://www.coreboot.org/Board:amd/south_station > > ... which according to > > https://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Motherboards/old > > has a SB850 and seems to be supported by coreboot. > > > > I could not find any further info on that board though... > > > > By the way, the Gigabyte mainboard has a "Dual BIOS" setup: > > https://www.coreboot.org/Gigabyte_Dual_bios > > > > I guess this could impose obstacles. > > > > It seems that there has been done work about it already: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/coreboot@coreboot.org/msg23613.html > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxbios@linuxbios.org/msg05929.html > > > > > > (Taiidan:) > > > > What would be really swell is a port to a nice 9xx series > > > > motherboard, > > > > both are quite old but the 8xx is even older. > > > > Heh, when I read specs on those, they both still sound absolutely > > high-end to me :P I find it strenuous to keep up with current tech > > trends... > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Merlin > > > > > > > > -- > > Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> > > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Offering Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 for porting
Hi, Taiidan and Renze, thank you for your responses. On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 03:46:07 +0100 Renze Nicolai <re...@rnplus.nl> wrote: > I am interested in porting Coreboot to your GA-890FXA-UD5. > A month ago I succesfully ported coreboot to my MS-7721 > (FM2-A75MA-E35) motherboard and having a go at porting another AMD > board to coreboot would be a good opportunity for me to learn more > about coreboot. That sounds good. I'd love to try it myself, but at the moment I don't feel like I have enough time for it. I'm also quite new to coreboot and have plenty to learn about it, so I guess I should start somewhere else. > Since I can not guarantee that I will succeed. Therefore I propose > that in case of failure the provided hardware will be returned to you > so that you can find someone else to give it a go. > > If you want me to work on porting coreboot to your board we should > work out the details privately. Please contact me directly > (re...@rnplus.nl). Sure! I'll write you an email today. > Can someone more experienced please confirm that coreboot has support > for the AMD 890FX northbridge, the AMD SB850 southbridge and the ITE > IT8720 superio chip? I'm not sure, but I found this: https://www.coreboot.org/Board:amd/south_station ... which according to https://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Motherboards/old has a SB850 and seems to be supported by coreboot. I could not find any further info on that board though... By the way, the Gigabyte mainboard has a "Dual BIOS" setup: https://www.coreboot.org/Gigabyte_Dual_bios I guess this could impose obstacles. It seems that there has been done work about it already: https://www.mail-archive.com/coreboot@coreboot.org/msg23613.html https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxbios@linuxbios.org/msg05929.html (Taiidan:) > > What would be really swell is a port to a nice 9xx series > > motherboard, > > both are quite old but the 8xx is even older. Heh, when I read specs on those, they both still sound absolutely high-end to me :P I find it strenuous to keep up with current tech trends... Thanks, Merlin -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
[coreboot] Offering Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 for porting
Hey all, I have a nice Gigabyte mainboard which I don't need/use anymore: A Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 (rev. 2.0 or 2.1) http://www.gigabyte.de/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3519 Since I like libre-friendly computing hardware, I'd find it nice to see libreboot running on it. I'm not sure, but from what I see, it should be libreboot compatible? Could someone more knowledged than me confirm this? If someone is interested in porting this board to coreboot, and if there are no big foreseeable obstacles to porting it to lireboot, I'd be happy donating that board together with a Phenom II 965 and 4G RAM, preferrable to someone in Germany or within the EU (shipping costs). Regards, Merlin -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] TALOS project short of funding goals - where to now?
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:18:42 +0100 Łukasz Dobrowolski <luk...@dobrowolski.io> wrote: > On 12/12/2016 03:27 AM, taii...@gmx.com wrote: > > The coreboot project is pretty much dead in the water without it, > > the only real choices for further development are either super low > > power crappy ARM devices or always going to be expensive IBM/TYAN > > POWER servers, so what do we do? > Maybe we should ask ourselfs do we really need high performance > computers? There are people who really need that performance, e.g. for various (open source) software / hardware development. I can see your point and I presume you don't really need such a powerful workstation -- me neither. But if you are working on big software projects, you cannot keep pace using librebooted Thinkpads or even ARM devices I guess :/ > I think that people don't believe that this would succeed. Including > me. Let me ask a different question: Why so many free hardware > projects are so impractical? Let's look at novena, it's supposed to > be a laptop. But it can't be practical because of it's size. Layout > of motherboard makes it impossible to craft a comfortable chassis. > It's got built-in fpga that makes it ~$40 more expensive (In my > opinion needlessly -- not many people use fpga.). [Lot's of text > here]. The pros is that even I could afford laptop at this prize tag > (if it wasn't a toy). I think the novena was not really supposed to be a laptop, but rather a mobile "hacking station". It was not targeted at the average linux user who just wants an open laptop. By the way there still are a few interesting projects in this lower performance class: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop https://www.olimex.com/Products/DIY%20Laptop/ http://openlunchbox.com/ http://www.powerpc-notebook.org/en/ ... and of course the upcoming RISC-V stuff. The Olimex DIY Laptop will be at FOSDEM afaik. From their website: "With different main board configurations: first with ARM64 and x86 later MIPS and other architectures may follow." That sounds promising. Of course it's an entirely different thing than Talos. Regarding Talos: This may sound silly and more knowledged readers now probably smile mildly and roll their eyes, but: Maybe it's still possible to create some "light version" of the Talos Workstation? Maybe not with all the features, but still based on POWER8. Maybe RE could team up with the Olimex guys? Or RE could work together with several (professional) volunteers to make R less expensive? Some guys from 51nb recently designed an Intel i7 motherboard that fits in an Thinkpad X61. If you'd calculate US-based R, maybe this would be in the range of Talos? Or at least it would sound unlikely to realize in the first place... Regards, Merlin -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Fund a TALOS Secure Workstation as coreboot build system
Hey all, > > I pledge 1,000 $. > Awesome! I think we are far more than half by now! For those who did not read (all) Updates, here is an excellent write-up on (vendor) hardware lockdown and its consequences for the free software world. [0] (for those of you who don't know about it already...) > People care, and ~$380k over 280+ pledges confirms this. But the TALOS > project is asking for about an order of magnitude more funding, and > 2-100x more money per working end product, than pretty much any other > CrowdSupply hardware platform crowdfunding effort likely to be of > interest to free software people (Novena, Librem 13, Librem 15, > EOMA68, USB Armory, etc). They surely target another group than the projects you mentioned. Not only in that Talos is more expensive (i.e. many people cannot afford it) than other free hardware projects, but also that probably most of them do not need such a powerful workstation -- at least for me, that's the case. But if you need the power and can spend $2k on a workstation, you can also spend $4k. And btw. Librem is shit, freedom-wise. > I realise that the TALOS is unique in its combination of technologies, > and that these technologies were chosen for very good reasons. But I > also realise that not many people can afford to buy a $7100 computer, > especially if one of the existing Libreboot or coreboot-supported > devices would meet most of their needs. > > As for the non-hardware options TALOS offers, I suspect people have > some difficulty justifying making charitable donations towards a > for-profit enterprise, or paying for SaaSS under a time limit and with > only fairly limited use-cases. To me, the point of this campaign is not to get cool free hardware, but to create/restore the very foundations that are needed to have them, i.e. research (so we can build on that and have that knowledge) and development (so we / other people have the ability to buy free and high-performance computing hardware). Really, if you're reading a bit on what's going on in the world regarding the freedom of hardware (e.g. article above, more and more lockdowns), imo it's easily justified to spend a few hundred dollars or, if you can, a few thousands for it -- without obtaining any actual hardware. That said, I think the most important thing is now 1) spreading the word, and 2) pulling oneself together to spend some money "just" for our digital freedom. Just imagine that *awesome* moment when Talos got funded, knowing that *you* were an indispensable part of it! I think that's easily worth it. Regards, Merlin [0] https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstation/updates/a-word-on-lockdown -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Success: Native gfx init on T500 with 1680x1050 display working w/o VGA blob
Hi Daniel, I'm not really qualified to answer your questions, but two things: > - the memtest86+ payload does not boot (or it boots but shows no image, I > don't know. Is it possible to make memtest86+ use the 1680x1050 resolution?). The libreboot project publishes extra ROMs for memtest, which use text mode instead of vesafb. So I think it's not possible to make it use 1680x1050. Second, please try to break lines at 72 or 75 characters :) Regards, Merlin -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] EC problem in X200s?
Hi Iru, > Recently, I flashed libreboot to my X200s (with L9300 CPU). But it seems > that there are some EC problems in X200s, which I haven't found in a X200. Be aware that there are different EC versions. One should therefore upgrade the BIOS/EC (one process) to the latest version before flashing core/libreboot. EC updates are known to fix bugs and also to improve battery handling. Can you please post the output of: cat /proc/asound/cards You can still upgrade the EC, but it's much work. You'd have to flash an older BIOS version with flashrom , then upgrade with the regular stock ISOs to latest BIOS/EC version [0], which will update also the EC firmware, and then reflash libreboot. > 3. At last I bought a factory battery, the first two problems will not > appear. In these two days, I found that when I charge with a 90W adapter, > the CPU will get very hot and the laptop will shut down. It seems that > it'll not happen with a 65W adapter. Some user on #libreboot reported that with an X200 Tablet (similar hardware) and EC v1.06 he had *not* this issue. Regards, Merlin [0] http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/BIOS_update_without_optical_disk -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Fund a TALOS Secure Workstation as coreboot build system
> PS: Please spread the word of the crowdfunding to your friends, and > coworkers, and support it, so that it’ll be a success. Guys, if we really try to spread the word about it, we can reach very much! It would be a great milestone for open source computing hardware. Just pull yourself together - together we can make this happen! Regards, mearon -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Getting an WXGA+ LED MVA panel to work on T400: "G141C1-L01"
> Linux should be able to modeset the display (mostly) independently from > coreboot > (misconfigured) settings. So if the display does not work in linux I > think something else is wrong. Thank you for that clarification. I found another attempt to put this MVA panel into a Thinkpad, but in a T410. He used a premade adapter cable from www.iccfl.com, so there was no soldering involved. It showed the exact same behavior as I have: backlight + dimming works, but no images is displayed. But at the end of his attempt, the old panel did not work anymore, so maybe he blew a fuse or so. This might be related to the higher current draw of the MVA panel. Maybe someone more knowledged could have a look at the electrical specs of the two panels, the officially working one [0] and the MVA panel [1]? And maybe also at the kernel logs I posted previously? That would be great. Thanks! Is there any other useful information I could provide, any other logs or such? Please let me know! > From what I can understand from datasheets this is a dual channel LVDS > (as expected)... Yes, it's indeed dual channel LVDS. [0] LP141WP2-TLB1: http://www.jxlcd.com/Upload/PicFiles/LP141WP2-TLB1.pdf [1] G141C1-L01: http://www.display-solution.com/pdf/tft-displays/Chi%20Mei%20Innolux/G141C1-L01_V2.0_20100802.pdf Regards, -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Getting an WXGA+ LED MVA panel to work on T400: "G141C1-L01"
Hi Nico, thank you for your reply. > I didn't have the time for a closer look at your logs. But there is one > thing coreboot does definitely wrong: The clock configuration. You can > see it from the Linux log as it dumps the settings coreboot made first: > > > [6.523864] [drm:drm_mode_debug_printmodeline] Modeline 0:"1440x900" 50 > > 87075 1440 1520 1672 1820 900 903 909 961 0x40 0xa > > [6.523872] [drm:intel_dump_pipe_config] port clock: 87075 > > vs what Linux sets up later: > > > [8.787651] [drm:drm_mode_debug_printmodeline] Modeline 0:"1440x900" 60 > > 104500 1440 1520 1672 1820 900 903 909 961 0x48 0xa > > [8.787668] [drm:intel_dump_pipe_config] port clock: 104500 Thank you for the hint. As I have really no idea what I should look for, it's a starting point. When I'm comparing this to the kernel log of my working CCFL WXGA display, I notice that on the CCFL WXGA display (which is a LP141WX3-TLR1), the clock frequency is set exactly to the value specified in the datasheet and EDID: 69.5 MHz. However on the G141C1-L01 (the MVA panel) datasheet, the clock frequency is '106.5MHz' in the EDID table - but Linux sets it to 104.5 MHz, if I understand the above correctly. The DCLK frequency in the datasheet is specified as: min. 40MHz, typ. 53.25MHz, max. 65MHz (see page 16 of [0]) Could that difference (104.5MHz to 106.5MHz maybe be the issue? I guess not, since there is a frequency range specified in the datasheet. I also noticed that the max. current draw of the panel is a little bit higher than the max. current draw of the LED WXGA+ which I used to compare the pinouts. (It is known to work and has model number 'LP141WP2-TLB1') For the MVA, typical for black is 550mA, for white it's 450mA. For the TN it's 365mA - 495mA with typical 430mA. What do you think about that? > Not sure why Linux doesn't get the display running though. But as Linux > sometimes reuses register settings set by the firmware there is a slight > chance that fixing coreboot would make it work in Linux too. You mean, despite the kernel log messages (which say 104500), it might be that Linux is actually using the clock settings from coreboot, that is 87075? So, to check for that - could I temporarily hardcode the correct clock settings in coreboot/libreboot? Also, is it worth checking with latest coreboot instead of latest libreboot? Maybe there are some changes concerning LVDS handling which are not yet in libreboot... So many questions :P > There is a related patch up for review for i945 [1] (older chipset) that > fixes a similar issue there. Maybe it applies to gm45 too. The code > looks very similar. To be honest -- I understand nearly nothing of it :/ Also note that all of this feels way above my skills - at least the coreboot / Linux / software part. Regards, Merlin [0] http://www.display-solution.com/pdf/tft-displays/Chi%20Mei%20Innolux/G141C1-L01_V2.0_20100802.pdf -- Merlin Büge <t...@bluenox07.de> -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
