September 2025 - coreboot - mail.coreboot.org

[coreboot - Bug #576] (New) GPIO locking is broken on Kaby Lake and possibly other platforms
by Mate Kukri June 2, 2026

June 2, 2026

Issue #576 has been reported by Mate Kukri. ---------------------------------------- Bug #576: GPIO locking is broken on Kaby Lake and possibly other platforms https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/576 * Author: Mate Kukri * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Target version: none * Start date: 2025-01-30 ---------------------------------------- Many supported Kaby Lake boards (and possibly newer platforms as well) are vulnerable to [TPM GPIO reset attacks](https://mkukri.xyz/2024/06/01/tpm-gpio-fail.html). Trying to fix this by marking the affected GPIOs as locked in gpio.h and even also selecting `SOC_INTEL_COMMON_BLOCK_SMM_LOCK_GPIO_PADS` does not work. This was discovered last year and briefly discussed on #coreboot, but it came up again on the Heads matrix group in relation to supporting the TPM on the in-progress ThinkPad T480 port. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

3 5

[coreboot - Bug #448] (New) Thinkpad T440P ACPI Battery Value Issues
by Karsten Schnier May 5, 2026

May 5, 2026

Issue #448 has been reported by Karsten Schnier. ---------------------------------------- Bug #448: Thinkpad T440P ACPI Battery Value Issues https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/448 * Author: Karsten Schnier * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Target version: none * Start date: 2023-01-11 * Affected versions: master * Related links: [[https://github.com/linrunner/TLP/issues/657]] * Affected hardware: Thinkpad T440p * Affected OS: Artix / Arch Linux ---------------------------------------- Hello, I have been having some issues with TLP on my corebooted T440p. I am running artix linux with grub on top of coreboot (self compiled libreboot). I have had issues with the ACPI battery readings. Coreboot does not provide power readings, but instead only current readings. More details can be found in the TLP github issue: [[https://github.com/linrunner/TLP/issues/657#issuecomment-1293730559]] This causes TLP to not recognize the thinkpad and go to default mode. Additional, it prevents recalibration of the battery even when the thinkpad battery driver is forced. Is this due to misconfiguration in the coreboot build or issues with coreboot itself? Thank you! -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

2 1

[coreboot - Bug #598] (New) Lenovo m920x RAM compatibility issue
by Dawid Wrobel April 6, 2026

April 6, 2026

Issue #598 has been reported by Dawid Wrobel. ---------------------------------------- Bug #598: Lenovo m920x RAM compatibility issue https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/598 * Author: Dawid Wrobel * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Target version: none * Start date: 2025-06-04 * Affected versions: main ---------------------------------------- Hi there, I recently flashed my m902x with coreboot (25.03-643-g69a067a9d62c-dirty). Everything seemed to work fine until I tried upgrading the memory from a single 8GB stick to 2 x 32GB (Crucial CT2K32G4SFD832A, https://eu.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/CT2K32G4SFD832A) The system won't boot in any configuration (a single stick in either slot or both). I get no display out, the system stays on and stuck, apparently, with high CPU usage causing fans to kick in. I have no serial port in this system at the moment (backordered an extension module), but am wondering if it will be of any help and if there's any other way to debug it? Do note that the system *is* capable of running 64GB memory, as it was reported already, so I wonder if this is a matter of some SPD misconfiguration? Crucial lists the 2x16GB modules as compatible with this system (https://eu.crucial.com/compatible-upgrade-for/lenovo/thinkcentre-m920x-tiny…) and they have seemingly identical specs as the 2x32GB ones. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

3 5

[coreboot - Bug #592] (New) Lenovo M920q can't use DIMM2 RAM slot
by Coreboot Enjoyer April 6, 2026

April 6, 2026

Issue #592 has been reported by Coreboot Enjoyer. ---------------------------------------- Bug #592: Lenovo M920q can't use DIMM2 RAM slot https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/592 * Author: Coreboot Enjoyer * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Category: coreboot common code * Target version: none * Start date: 2025-04-15 * Affected versions: main * Related links: https://github.com/Thrilleratplay/coreboot-builder-scripts/issues/33 Also, it looks like a similar issue to https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/462 * Affected hardware: Lenovo M920q ---------------------------------------- Building the current coreboot source, as well as commits 497298708c330deb479fbf3ee6a3acc8bff2a102, 640a41f3ee938b794b140218921e0fd63b1d9235 and 7945a31e9172ec2939cc1abc6036962a6efb601b, produces the firmware, that allows to initialize the motherboard if only DIMM1 RAM slot is filled. It fails to initialize, if DIMM1 RAM slot is empty and DIMM2 is filled, as well as if both DIMM1 and DIMM2 are filled. The issue is reproducible with different RAM sticks. I tried every possible combination with Kingston 32GB (2666MHz, CL 19-19-19-43) and Samsung 8GB (2400MHz, CL 17-17-17-39) -- the motherboard recognizes RAM sticks correctly, but still fails when the DIMM2 is filled with any RAM stick. I have also attached the build config file, which uses most of the default options. ---Files-------------------------------- m920q-dimm2-config.txt (27.6 KB) -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

6 8

[coreboot - Bug #449] (New) ThinkPad T440p fail to start, continous beeping & LED blinking
by Crazy Fox Feb. 21, 2026

Feb. 21, 2026

Issue #449 has been reported by Crazy Fox. ---------------------------------------- Bug #449: ThinkPad T440p fail to start, continous beeping & LED blinking https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/449 * Author: Crazy Fox * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Category: coreboot common code * Target version: 4.18 * Start date: 2023-01-14 * Affected versions: 4.18 * Affected hardware: haswell ---------------------------------------- Hi, Team Being corebooted before and works fine on 4.17. After flashing 4.18 my t440p wont startup (black screen, constant beeping & LED blinking). I've tried and retried different nconfigs but result is the same. I know that it is lack of information, but I need to recover the laptop first to grab some logs from it. Log from FT232H's debug is attached, the rest of info (defconfig, flashrom command etc. will upload soon) ---Files-------------------------------- coreboot_t440p_emerg.log (7.85 KB) -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

4 5

[coreboot - Bug #439] (New) Lenovo X201 Turbo Boost not working
by Lukas Karg Nov. 17, 2025

Nov. 17, 2025

Issue #439 has been reported by Lukas Karg. ---------------------------------------- Bug #439: Lenovo X201 Turbo Boost not working https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/439 * Author: Lukas Karg * Status: New * Priority: High * Target version: none * Start date: 2022-11-18 * Affected versions: master * Affected hardware: Lenovo X201 * Affected OS: Linux, Windows, ... ---------------------------------------- -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

1 7

[coreboot - Bug #601] (New) superio/nuvoton/npcd378:379 FAN issue sandy/ivy-bridge & haswell on HP
by Walter Sonius Nov. 13, 2025

Nov. 13, 2025

Issue #601 has been reported by Walter Sonius. ---------------------------------------- Bug #601: superio/nuvoton/npcd378:379 FAN issue sandy/ivy-bridge & haswell on HP https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/601 * Author: Walter Sonius * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Assignee: Patrick Rudolph * Category: board support * Target version: main * Start date: 2025-07-05 * Affected versions: 25.03 * Affected hardware: compaq_8200_elite_sff, compaq_8300_elite_sff, compaq_pro_6300_sff, 260_g1_dm, prodesk_600_g1_sff ---------------------------------------- The NPCD378 HWM FAN control is limited to the PSU FAN only but should work for the "compaq_8200_elite_sff" according to its [commit and instruction](https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/26050), which states "... the SuperIO has to be notified that a write is ongoing. After clearing the write-lock bit all changes are applied...". Is there a special command that I missed that "clears the write-lock" or is there a bug and is its current implementation broken? Since adjusting the nvram parameter `sudo nvramtool -w psu_fan_lvl=1-7`and doing a reboot or cold powerup does show that the nvram parameter changes (can be confirmed by coreboot log or reading the nvram parameter after boot again) it never changes the actual PSU FAN speed! Tried multiple coreboot/seabios/edk2 versions the last 3 months on 5 different HP machines and came to the following conclusion. The following nvramtool `psu_fan_lvl=values` reflect the following PWM feedback from the coreboot log: ``` =1 [INFO ] NPCD378: PSU fan PWM 0x37 =2 [INFO ] NPCD378: PSU fan PWM 0x57 =3 [INFO ] NPCD378: PSU fan PWM 0x77 =4 [INFO ] NPCD378: PSU fan PWM 0x97 =5 [INFO ] NPCD378: PSU fan PWM 0xb7 =6 [INFO ] NPCD378: PSU fan PWM 0xd7 =7 [INFO ] NPCD378: PSU fan PWM 0xf8 ``` The following 3 supported sandy/ivy bridge HP variants share the same issue that nvram parameters and coreboot log show the requested manual `psu_fan_lvl` values but its PSU FAN speed won't change according to these values, atleast its FANs keep spinning after post/boot on these machines: ``` VALUE FAN SPEED compaq_8200_elite_sff NPCD378 adjusts remains same compaq_8300_elite_sff NPCD379 adjusts remains same compaq_pro_6300_sff NPCD379 adjusts remains same ``` The following 2 yet uncommited HP Haswell coreboot variants, "HP 260 G1 DM (Desktop Mini) Business PC" and "HP Prodesk 600 G1 SFF" both come with a NPCD379 and both share the same issue with the former 3 variants that the `psu_fan_lvl` value's can be adjusted by nvramtool(if cmos backend is added to the code) and verified during boot or nvramtool that these values have changed with affecting the PSU FAN speed in a undesired way: ``` VALUE FAN SPEED 260_g1_dm NPCD379 adjusts stops spinning prodesk_600_g1_sff NPCD379 adjusts stops spinning ``` These 2 Haswell machines will halt "and stop spinning" the PSU FAN as soon as during post the "PSU fan PWM" value kicks in!!! A side note is needed for the HP 260 G1 DM since it only has a single FAN, so I'm not sure if its CPU or its PSU FAN technically and its OEM BIOS misses a option the adjust FAN speed compared to the other 4 HP models! Another side note for the Prodesk 600 G1 SFF is that I'm forced to use a aftermarket non HP CPU FAN(old Intel CPU FAN), but it keeps spinning after coreboot post. Removing the FAN/HWM code from the superio NPCD378 source, leads to the opposite it will force the PSU FAN to its MAXIMUM speed after poweron but atleast keeps the FAN spinning. This maximum forced full speed FAN behaviour can also be replicated by removing one of the 4 FAN wires, red or white cable not sure anymore. Interesting FAN notes: In case of the "Prodesk 600 G1", swapping its PSU with the PSU from the "compaq_8300_elite_sff" keeps the PSU fan spinning during and after coreboot post but it will still not adjust its PSU FAN speed to its requested values! Also the other way around, putting the PSU of the "Prodesk 600 G1" inside the "compaq_8300_elite_sff" stops the PSU FAN during coreboot post, but running the OEM firmware, keeps the fan spinning and let it adjust to all requested values on its donor FAN. So it seems there is a certain PWM compatibility to control these FAN's in similar ways between these boards. It seems the the newer PSU FAN from the Haswell generation can actually disable / stop spinning on a certain PWM value while older FAN keep spinning on these lower/ same PWM values. Compared to the [initial support commit](https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/26050) by Patrick Rudolph, around April 2021 there were some [code](https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/52511) [fixes](https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/52671) but after that the last time this `psu_fan_lvl` code was verified functional was between 2023-05-02 and 2023-07-03 noted in the [boardsupport commit](https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/74906) of the variant `compaq_8300_elite_sff_usdt` by Riku Viitanen. History for "coreboot/src/superio/nuvoton/npcd378" shows [6 patches](https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/commits/main/src/superio/nuvo… from november 2023 till today. Any tips hints welcome. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

2 4

coreboot Meetings Announcement And Agenda Call
by mina＠coreboot.org Sept. 29, 2025

Sept. 29, 2025

Dear coreboot Community, Please be reminded that our upcoming leadership meetings for both the early GMT and late GMT time zones are scheduled for Wednesday, October 1, 2025. [1] Kindly take a moment to update the agenda items with issues you'd like to discuss during these meetings. [2] Thank you. ## Current Agenda Items * No active issues on the agenda yet. [1](https://coreboot.org/calendar.html) [2](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NRXqXcLBp5pFkHiJbrLdv3Spqh1Hu086HYkK…

1 0

Asus (AMI) vendor firmware reversing: what does HDA?
by Keith Hui Sept. 24, 2025

Sept. 24, 2025

I'm looking for some tips here. Anyone know which module in an AMI Aptio UEFI initializes HD Audio codecs? I'm doing all this on my p8z77-v_le_plus. My hope is, once I find the module responsible, I can quickly inspect that module in every board in the family and build a correct hda_verb.c for each without actually having one on hand to run autoport on. I'm now able to extract the VBT and USB port configurations straight from vendor firmware image. And if it does something special with its onboard devices, I know which module to load into Ghidra for a deeper look after blowing it apart with uefiextract. However, I'm not yet able to find the part of the firmware that initializes the HDA codec. Based on the two boards I actually own and brought into coreboot, there are setup options within the firmware that touch on the codec, and it certainly is involved on their bringup. One involves the front audio panel and whether a HD Audio or AC97 panel is connected. The setup variables are stored in EFI variable "Setup" with GUID EC87D643-EBA4-4BB5-A1E5-3F3E36B20DA9. There are usually three HDA settings: A main enable, HDA/AC97 front panel selection, and sometimes a SPDIF/HDMI selection. I found their offset within Setup, but I can't find the module that reads the variable(s) and act on them. Currently I use binwalk to scan all the extracted "body.bin" for "Setup" in unicode and try to find those with both signatures, to load them into Ghidra one by one. I'm looking for hints to make the process faster or narrow my scope. Thanks Keith

1 0

2025_09_24 coreboot Group Review Session
by mina＠coreboot.org Sept. 22, 2025

Sept. 22, 2025

Hello coreboot, Kindly note that we have an upcoming group review session scheduled for Wednesday, September 24. https://meet.google.com/kpu-yozw-gtt Check the coreboot calendar for the time in your timezone: https://coreboot.org/calendar.html Find the link to the list of patches to be reviewed this week here: (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1io-tewVlkX3PAkhR9ttCKjJXiXR9Emy6qsY…) Please add any specific patches you'd like the group to review to the top of the sheet. Since an hour may not be sufficient to address all patches on the list, reviewing patches in advance is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Best regards, Mina.

1 0