coreboot December 2013

coreboot@coreboot.org

40 participants
108 discussions

Re: [coreboot] INTEL FSP support coreboot-v4.0-4966
by ron minnich 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

Here are my thoughts on FSP. FSP is how we deal with a bad situation: the fact that Intel chipsets are no longer open (the way they were until 2000 or so) and require a binary blob from Intel to get them working. We have, as we can see, used several paths over the years to deal with the binary blob problem. In 2001 Intel and Linux labs produced a linuxbios for a board in which intel provided a binary blob for the top 64k and linux labs did the rest. That was all until the chromebooks. In the Intel-based chromebooks we've had to contend with lots of binary blobs: - ME binary - VBIOS (solved now) - memory ref. code - probably more to come if history is a guide You can find the blobs for 2 of the Intel-based chrome systems at coreboot.org, no others. That's not an encouraging situation for FSP, because from a high level, FSP is another proprietary binary blob. Until it an be part of the coreboot repo it's not a viable solution. The best approach was and remains a full source-based coreboot image, as is still possible for a few intel chipsets, all AMD chipsets, and many ARM chipsets. FSP is an interesting idea, but again, until we can put it at coreboot.org, it's not a viable approach. It's also a way to address the LACK of full source-code base for a chipset. It's a way to solve a problem, but it is not the most desirable way. So, the status of FSP is this: very nice approach to solving the binary blob problem, better than what we have (nothing), not practical until the FSP blob can be redistributed from coreboot.org. It will never unify all x86 chipsets because people will continue to work on source-code-based approaches. thanks for your help and hard work! ron

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Please tell us more about Falco, Peppy, Slippy, Bold and Pit!
by Aaron Durbin 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello! > Gabe, you can't add that.... Both were destroyed, and the plans were > misplaced..... We're looking into why they were misplaced. > > Aaron a question. A reference platform is just that, a platform > created to test out a specific operating system or a family of > systems, but its only designed to be used within the firms R&D > facility. Is this correct? In this case these are hardware reference platforms for ChromeOS. So the latter. > > Something of a sort came up early in the Coreboot period, about the > time AMD actually committed to being interested, as it happens. > ----- > Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8(a)gmail.com > "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Gabe Black <gabeblack(a)google.com> wrote: >> Only if you get it with the optional orbital laser platform. We can't answer >> questions like that. >> >> Gabe >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:55 PM, mrnuke <mr.nuke.me(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/05/2013 06:11 PM, David Hendricks wrote: >>> > Pit is yet-to-be-released and uses the Samsung Exynos5420 octa-core >>> > (big.LITTLE) SoC. >>> > >>> Am I reading that "octa" correctly? How does it perform in terms of >>> running your average distro with your average desktop environment? >>> >>> Is this a laptop? >>> Does it come with a decent display (both in terms of quality and size)? >>> Does it have a backlit keyboard? >>> Good speakers? >>> Big battery? >>> Upgradeable RAM? >>> Upgradeable SSD (mSATA or 2.5")? >>> >>> Will it massage my back? >>> Increase the resale value of my home? >>> Give me a bigger toy? >>> Get me to Cuba? >>> ... >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> -- >>> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >>> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >> >> >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

1 0

Re: [coreboot] INTEL FSP support coreboot-v4.0-4966
by mrnuke 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

On 12/05/2013 08:44 AM, Stojsavljevic, Zoran wrote: > Hello, > [...] > Here is the question for thinking: both CC2 and EL2 choices should be unified, to reflect one steady procedure for INTEL FSP, right? > > I sent this email not in negative connotation, just trying to understand how better to approach Coreboot configuration procedure. Since there are more than few paths to be selected and IDF tool to be used to generate descriptor.bin . > > Looking forward to some suggestions (from wide auditorium) to what I wrote here. > Well, we still consider FSP support experimental. As you might have imagined, the concept is new to us, we're still trying to wrap our heads around it. We're not even sure if we'll keep FSP in the long run, considering we have more native support for the FSP parts. As far as the configuration goes, if you start with a blank .config, and select the board you want, the defaults should be able to produce a working image. How did you think of unifying CC2 and EL2? One uses the FSP path, while the other one does not. We still keep the FSP vs non-FSP paths separate, although I think converting a board from one path to the other should be relatively simple. I would start by editing the configuration in src/mainboard/intel/<boardname>/ (Kconfig and devicetree.cb), and go from there. Alex

2 1

Re: [coreboot] IVB FSP binary released on public INTEL site!
by Patrick Georgi 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

Am Donnerstag, den 05.12.2013, 15:32 +0000 schrieb Stojsavljevic, Zoran: > Very Good News! IVB FSP binary released on the INTEL public site. Good news, indeed. I've been looking through the click through license and wonder if the OEM license that's included could extend to redistribution on coreboot.org (with some accompanying text). Depending on how I interpret the first paragraph of "OEM LICENSE", it might or might not, but I'm not a lawyer. Maybe you could ask someone at Intel for an authoritative clarification? Thanks, Patrick

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Please tell us more about Falco, Peppy, Slippy, Bold and Pit!
by Gregg Levine 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

Hello! Gabe, you can't add that.... Both were destroyed, and the plans were misplaced..... We're looking into why they were misplaced. Aaron a question. A reference platform is just that, a platform created to test out a specific operating system or a family of systems, but its only designed to be used within the firms R&D facility. Is this correct? Something of a sort came up early in the Coreboot period, about the time AMD actually committed to being interested, as it happens. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8(a)gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Gabe Black <gabeblack(a)google.com> wrote: > Only if you get it with the optional orbital laser platform. We can't answer > questions like that. > > Gabe > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:55 PM, mrnuke <mr.nuke.me(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/05/2013 06:11 PM, David Hendricks wrote: >> > Pit is yet-to-be-released and uses the Samsung Exynos5420 octa-core >> > (big.LITTLE) SoC. >> > >> Am I reading that "octa" correctly? How does it perform in terms of >> running your average distro with your average desktop environment? >> >> Is this a laptop? >> Does it come with a decent display (both in terms of quality and size)? >> Does it have a backlit keyboard? >> Good speakers? >> Big battery? >> Upgradeable RAM? >> Upgradeable SSD (mSATA or 2.5")? >> >> Will it massage my back? >> Increase the resale value of my home? >> Give me a bigger toy? >> Get me to Cuba? >> ... >> >> Alex >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Please tell us more about Falco, Peppy, Slippy, Bold and Pit!
by mrnuke 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

On 12/05/2013 06:11 PM, David Hendricks wrote: > Pit is yet-to-be-released and uses the Samsung Exynos5420 octa-core > (big.LITTLE) SoC. > Am I reading that "octa" correctly? How does it perform in terms of running your average distro with your average desktop environment? Is this a laptop? Does it come with a decent display (both in terms of quality and size)? Does it have a backlit keyboard? Good speakers? Big battery? Upgradeable RAM? Upgradeable SSD (mSATA or 2.5")? Will it massage my back? Increase the resale value of my home? Give me a bigger toy? Get me to Cuba? ... Alex

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Please tell us more about Falco, Peppy, Slippy, Bold and Pit!
by Paul Menzel 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

Dear Aaron, thanks a lot for your quick and interesting reply! Am Mittwoch, den 04.12.2013, 17:49 -0600 schrieb Aaron Durbin: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Paul Menzel wrote: > > developers at Google started upstreaming their patches for their new > > devices. For example the boards Falco, Peppy, Pit and Slippy are now in > > the coreboot repository. Big thanks for that. > > Slippy is a reference board that can't be bought. > Peppy is the Acer C720 > Falco is the HP Chromebook 14. > > Those 3 are all haswell. So what are Pit and Bolt? Can those be bought? > > Could you please write a summary mail or create Wiki pages, what > > Chromebooks these refer to and what features they have? > > As for features... parallel cpu bring up and parallel SMM relocation. > It uses relocatable ramstage, dynamic cbmem, and a few other things > that I can't think of off the top of my head. I guess, all of them use native graphics initialization (Fast User Interface (FUI)). > If you have questions about anything in particular can provide more > insight. I’d be very much interested in timing data and comparison to older systems. […] > I have more stuff queued up from the baytrail work, but > that can be found in our repo. Actually, some of it can be upstreamed > now. I generalized the parallel cpu bring up and SMM relocation paths > so others can use it as well. > > See https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/coreboot/+/refs/he… > as the library the following as the usage example (look for > 'flight_record'): > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/coreboot/+/refs/he… What existing/old boards would easily profit from this? Even the i945 based boards (Core 2 Duo CPUs I believe)? Thanks, Paul

3 2

IVB FSP binary released on public INTEL site!
by Stojsavljevic, Zoran 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

Hello Coreboot Community, Very Good News! IVB FSP binary released on the INTEL public site. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/intelligent-systems/intel-firmware-s… https://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&DwnldID=23441 Best Regards, Zoran _______ Most of The Time you should be "intel inside" to be capable to think "out of the box". Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052

1 0

INTEL FSP support coreboot-v4.0-4966
by Stojsavljevic, Zoran 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

Hello, I just noticed new patches/drops into Coreboot (Cougar Canyon 2 board added). I did take git snapshot, and tried to see few things (what was added there). Talking about snapshot v4.0-4966 . It seems that Emerald Lake 2 (EL2) and Cougar Canyon 2 (CC2) support two slightly different concepts. I switched from EL2 to CC2 (since I have EL2 and CC2 here in lab, but only tried EL2 board with CC2 FSP context). I needed to have 10+ adaptation building for CC2, and in this process I noticed the following: [1] CC2 has several parameters hard coded (in <chipset>); [2] The new directory added: src/cpu/intel/fsp_model_206ax (there is already model_206ax); [3] This directory is out of sync (does not compile), so I added IVB microcode patches files (microcode_m2xxx_000000yy.h) and modified microcode_blob.h file; [4] Added vbios (latest 2170.dat); [5] Did not noticed Management Engine (new concept for all other non-INTEL embedded folks, which suddenly popped up from nowhere) addendum (path) for CC2, which EL2 does have; [6] Did not see/find descriptor.bin definition file and path definition (should be included somewhere); [7] Used standard seabios from git as payload. And, yes, the whole Coreboot-v4.0-4966 does correctly compile with native gcc (NO cross-compiler) on my Fedora 18+ (Fedora 20) VM on my SNB DT: coreboot.rom: 8192 kB, bootblocksize 864, romsize 8388608, offset 0x400000 alignment: 64 bytes Name Offset Type Size cmos_layout.bin 0x400000 cmos_layout 1164 pci8086,0166.rom 0x4004c0 optionrom 65536 cpu_microcode_blob.bin 0x410500 microcode 32832 fallback/romstage 0x4185c0 stage 31082 fallback/coreboot_ram 0x41ff80 stage 75924 fallback/payload 0x432880 payload 55177 config 0x440080 raw 4426 pci8086,1502.rom 0x441200 raw 67584 (empty) 0x451a40 null 3335512 fsp.bin 0x77ffc0 (unknown) 393216 (empty) 0x7e0000 null 130072 Here is the question for thinking: both CC2 and EL2 choices should be unified, to reflect one steady procedure for INTEL FSP, right? I sent this email not in negative connotation, just trying to understand how better to approach Coreboot configuration procedure. Since there are more than few paths to be selected and IDF tool to be used to generate descriptor.bin . Looking forward to some suggestions (from wide auditorium) to what I wrote here. Thank you, Zoran Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052

1 0

Please tell us more about Falco, Peppy, Pit and Slippy!
by Paul Menzel 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

Dear (Google) coreboot folks, developers at Google started upstreaming their patches for their new devices. For example the boards Falco, Peppy, Pit and Slippy are now in the coreboot repository. Big thanks for that. Could you please write a summary mail or create Wiki pages, what Chromebooks these refer to and what features they have? Were there other major changes regarding coreboot or new features introduced? That would be awesome! Thanks in advance, Paul

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot December 2013