coreboot June 2014

coreboot@coreboot.org

45 participants
77 discussions

Re: [coreboot] Investigating the high pitched noise on the x60 tablet
by Peter Stuge 29 Jun '14

29 Jun '14

Charles Devereaux wrote: > I would like to investigate the whining noise issue. > > I have a spare motherboard that I'm setting up for studying this noise > issue by pinpointing from which component it comes from .. > by default going into a power saving mode that make this noise. The noise is not created by a particular state. The noise is created by switching between states. I expect that the noise comes from power supply circuitry. Use an oscilloscope in clever ways to find the source. idle=halt skips all C-states. uhci_hcd requires the CPU to run every ms. Factory BIOS and coreboot have different noise. Thermal shutdown is fairly easy to induce when running coreboot, but not with factory BIOS. X60 has notoriously poor thermal design, but still there is no thermal shutdown with factory BIOS. Find why. Understanding the thermal issue might be helpful for the noise issue. Learn how the factory BIOS manages the CPU power states. You will not be able to find the documentation you may want for this. //Peter

3 2

compiling on FreeBSD
by Beeblebrox 29 Jun '14

29 Jun '14

On FreeBSD platform, "$ make menuconfig" bombs pretty hard. Part of the problem seems like bash vs sh, but I doubt if that's the whole of it. Is FreeBSD within consideration of working build platforms? $ make menuconfig make: "/Makefile" line 33: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 34: Could not find .xcompile make: "/Makefile" line 59: Variable/Value missing from "export" make: "/Makefile" line 65: Missing dependency operator make: "/Makefile" line 66: Missing dependency operator make: "/Makefile" line 68: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 69: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 10: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 12: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 85: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 86: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 87: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 90: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 148: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 149: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 150: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 152: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 153: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 154: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 156: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 157: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 158: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 160: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 161: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 162: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 163: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 164: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 165: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 168: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 169: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 170: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 172: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 173: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 173: warning: duplicate script for target "(,1)" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 169: warning: using previous script for "(,1)" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 174: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 214: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 267: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 271: Missing dependency operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 293: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 296: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 312: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 321: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 341: Need an operator make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 374: warning: duplicate script for target "/%.moc" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 304: warning: using previous script for "/%.moc" defined here make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 376: warning: duplicate script for target "/lkc_defs.h" ignored make: "util/kconfig/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 307: warning: using previous script for "/lkc_defs.h" defined here make: "/Makefile" line 90: Missing dependency operator make: "/Makefile" line 92: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 93: Missing dependency operator make: "/Makefile" line 94: Missing dependency operator make: "/Makefile" line 96: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 97: Missing dependency operator make: "/Makefile" line 99: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 100: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 102: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 28: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 30: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 32: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 34: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 35: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 36: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 37: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 38: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 39: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 44: Variable/Value missing from "export" make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 116: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 118: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 119: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 121: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 123: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 125: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 136: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 137: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 139: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 140: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 149: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 158: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 178: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 204: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 206: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 209: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 211: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 213: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 215: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 225: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 227: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 276: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 277: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 278: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 279: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 280: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 281: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 448: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 450: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 451: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 453: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 454: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 456: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 457: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 459: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 463: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 480: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 483: warning: duplicate script for target "/coreboot.pre1" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 479: warning: using previous script for "/coreboot.pre1" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 484: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 486: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 487: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 489: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 490: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 492: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 493: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 495: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 499: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 505: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 506: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 507: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 508: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 511: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 512: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 513: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 514: warning: duplicate script for target "ifneq" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 510: warning: using previous script for "ifneq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 515: warning: duplicate script for target "ifneq" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 510: warning: using previous script for "ifneq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 516: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 517: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 518: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 519: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 519: warning: duplicate script for target "(,y)" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 506: warning: using previous script for "(,y)" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 523: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 523: warning: duplicate script for target "(,y)" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 506: warning: using previous script for "(,y)" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 524: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 525: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 526: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 526: warning: duplicate script for target "(,y)" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 506: warning: using previous script for "(,y)" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 527: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 528: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 529: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 529: warning: duplicate script for target "(,y)" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 506: warning: using previous script for "(,y)" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 530: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 531: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 532: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 532: warning: duplicate script for target "(,y)" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 506: warning: using previous script for "(,y)" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 533: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 534: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 535: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 536: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 536: warning: duplicate script for target "(,y)" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 506: warning: using previous script for "(,y)" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 537: warning: duplicate script for target "ifeq" ignored make: "/util/kconfig/Makefile" line 11: warning: using previous script for "ifeq" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 537: warning: duplicate script for target "(,y)" ignored make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 506: warning: using previous script for "(,y)" defined here make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 538: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 539: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 548: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 550: Need an operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 551: Missing dependency operator make: "/./Makefile.inc" line 553: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 106: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 108: Could not find make: "/Makefile" line 110: Missing dependency operator make: "/Makefile" line 115: Missing dependency operator make: "/Makefile" line 117: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 131: Need an operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 23: Missing dependency operator make: Unknown modifier ',' make: Unknown modifier ',' make: Unknown modifier ',' make: Unknown modifier ',' make: Unknown modifier ',' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: "/toolchain.inc" line 26: Missing dependency operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 27: Need an operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 28: Need an operator make: Unknown modifier ',' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: "/toolchain.inc" line 34: Need an operator make: Unknown modifier ',' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: "/toolchain.inc" line 39: Need an operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 42: Missing dependency operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 44: Missing dependency operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 46: Need an operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 49: Need an operator make: Unknown modifier ',' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: Unknown modifier '/' make: "/toolchain.inc" line 54: Need an operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 90: Need an operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 101: Need an operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 112: Need an operator make: "/toolchain.inc" line 114: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 189: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 190: Missing dependency operator make: "/Makefile" line 191: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 192: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 195: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 198: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 205: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 212: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 217: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 218: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 222: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 223: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 224: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 229: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 232: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 245: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 247: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 248: Need an operator make: "/Makefile" line 249: Need an operator make: Fatal errors encountered -- cannot continue make: stopped -- FreeBSD_amd64_11-Current_RadeonKMS

3 3

F2A85-M: Chassis Fan Not Working
by HacKurx 28 Jun '14

28 Jun '14

Hi, I just update coreboot on my motherboard and after reboot of my computer the chassis fan stopped working. I did not have this problem with the version of coreboot from 1 March 2014: http://review.coreboot.org/#/c/5226/ Have you an idea of the problem? Thank you -- Best regards, HacKurx hackurx.wordpress.com

1 0

PAE status/ 8Gb of ram on X60
by Charles Devereaux 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

Hello I am wondering if there any limitation with coreboot on using say 2x 4Gb RAM sticks and a linux kernel with PAE enabled? Is anyone using such a setup? I'm considering getting that, but I would like some confirmation before, since 2x 4Gb DDR2 5300 is quite expansive. Thanks!

1 0

[RFH] Sponsor for Lenovo X60 wanted
by Paul Menzel 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

Dear coreboot folks, in the last weeks I started working a little on the Lenovo X60 support [1]. There are several issues like non-working 3D support with Linux 3.12+ [2]. Also Linux 3.11+ (or earlier) is unable to initialize the graphics device itself. Unfortunately I do not own such a device. Francis Rowe helped me a lot with testing, but asking others to test does not scale, so I am contacting you if there are some interested people to sponsor a Lenovo X60 (preferably with a docking station for easier debugging). I cannot give any promises of course, but am optimistic that I can hold up to testing coreboot and Linux regressions and hopefully get some of those fixed. Please contact me if you want to support that endeavor. Thanks, Paul [1] http://review.coreboot.org/5927/ [2] http://www.coreboot.org/Board:lenovo/x60#Problems_in_native_graphics_code_e…

4 4

re; tool, like inteltool, that writes to memory locations.
by Thomas Gibson 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Is there an equivalent tool to 'inteltool' that allows writes to RCBA + offset memory locations? tom gibson silver peak systems

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Improvement of coreboot code
by Paul Menzel 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Dear Karl-Heinz, Am Samstag, den 21.06.2014, 13:45 +0200 schrieb Karl-Heinz Nirschl: > last time was with a yonah / 945gm / ich7 based system. i think that was > 3-4 years ago (coreboot v2?) > > maybe that statement is somewhat subjective and i have just more experience > with stuff like that in the meantime. i don't have that code anymore but i > think things a just more straight forward and understandable. > > moreover i found it was a lot easier to get a working build that at least > puts out some postcodes and debug log. i think it didn't even compile > without modifications the last time. > an very important reason is that i have exactly the same board - having > (intel) reference boards actively supported makes starting much easier. > last time it was hard to find a supported mainboard that could be bought > somewhere. thank you for the detailed response! It’s useful, because when I look at code a lot over a long period of time, at least I miss how it improves/changes over time. So the view from outside is good to know. Thanks, Paul

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Intel FSP on Bayley Bay CRB: No output
by Sean McNeil 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Hi Martin, I hope you are using the torque screwdriver and not tightening them beyond the recommended ft-lbs. If you go too tight, you can damage the board. Cheers, Sean On 06/23/2014 02:53 AM, Martin Roth wrote: > This whole microcode issue caused us a couple of weeks of delay. > Here's the basics of what I found - I don't know if any of this is > fixed, I'll check with Intel and report back: > > There are 2 different microcode load routines, one for the BSP, and > one for the APs. The BSP's routine will load the microcode without > checking that the SKU is correct. The AP's loading routine won't load > if the microcode SKU is wrong. Unfortunately, it doesn't report this, > it just doesn't load the microcode and carries on as if nothing > happened. > > The hang is caused due to an MSR access that isn't valid unless the > microcode is loaded. Accessing this MSR hangs the APs. The system > will then hang waiting for the AP init to complete. > > I believe you'll find that if you comment out the final FSP call, the > system will boot, but you'll probably only have one core running. > > The issue with the correct microcode is that apparently there were no > Bay Trail I SKUs released for the B0 rev - they were released as a > "super-Sku" that is identified as a Bay Trail T. There is, however, > for some reason, still a microcode patch available for the Bay Trail I > B0/B1. > > I *believe* that the correct microcode patch for the B0 parts is the > Bay Trail T patch that's in the FSP package. If this microcode patch > isn't working for anyone on their B0, please let me know. > > We (Intel and Sage) had initially decided that only the B3 silicon was > going to be supported for this release. I'm still not sure that > wasn't the correct choice, but it was later requested to add the > support for the B0 part as well. I'd really urge anyone using a B0 to > just upgrade to a B3 part. > > > On an unrelated note, after heavy use of the Bayley Bay and Bakersport > boards, we noticed that the boot was halting in memory init, when > nothing on the board had changed. I finally figured out that this was > due to a bad board connection with the processor. Since the > processors are not soldered to the board, it seems like sometimes the > connection would develop issues. Tightening the adapter holding the > processor to the board fixed all the issues we were having. > > Martin > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Giri <girim77(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Regarding below two items >> >> 1) The microcode that is being included is not a part of coreboot, so it >> needs to be disabled for the default build so that abuild doesn't fail. >> Intel wants to release the microcode as part of the FSP package and not >> include it in the coreboot repo so that the microcode vs FSP versions can be >> matched up. >> >> Microcode is not part of FSP but just consumes the pointer and length. >> Microcode and FSP versions doesn't need to match but the microcode needs to >> match the CPU on that platform. >> >> 2) The microcode that's included for the intel FSP is for B2/B3 silicon, but >> it seems like many users are still using B0 silicon, which requires a >> different microcode patch. This shouldn't be a problem but since there are >> 4 SKUs of Bay Trail and using the microcode for the wrong SKU will *APPEAR* >> to work, but cause issues later, the microcode can cause massive amounts of >> confusion. >> >> Please check if the microcode is loaded by reading MSR 0x8B >> >> -Giri >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: coreboot [mailto:coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org] On Behalf Of Peter >> Stuge >> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 2:57 AM >> To: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> Subject: Re: [coreboot] Intel FSP on Bayley Bay CRB: No output >> >> Martin Roth wrote: >>> Eh, it's code... It's going to have issues and bugs. >> I disagree with that attitude. A platform vendor writing platform init code >> doesn't really have a valid excuse for producing buggy code. >> >> "Release early, release often" can't be an excuse to push the consequences >> of one's own shortcomings onto others. That's just poor programmer's moral. >> >> I obviously disagree with letting shortcomings in other code generate issues >> in coreboot. >> >> >>> We're all interested in getting these things to the highest quality, >> It doesn't seem to me that Intel is interested in that at all. >> >> They're making themselves the only actor in the world capable of producing >> correct platform init code for their platforms, yet they don't. My guess as >> to why is that time to market is quite short. >> >> >>> They're still actively developing the code and working to improve >>> things, so in that way it's definitely better than getting a single >>> source code drop that never gets updated again. >> That's a joke, right? >> >> Source code without updates is clearly better than no source code. >> >> Maybe I'm getting too old to waste my life on closed source nonsense? >> >> >> //Peter >> >> -- >> 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 on Bayley Bay CRB: No output
by Martin Roth 22 Jun '14

22 Jun '14

There are a number of issues here: 1) The microcode that is being included is not a part of coreboot, so it needs to be disabled for the default build so that abuild doesn't fail. Intel wants to release the microcode as part of the FSP package and not include it in the coreboot repo so that the microcode vs FSP versions can be matched up. 2) The microcode that's included for the intel FSP is for B2/B3 silicon, but it seems like many users are still using B0 silicon, which requires a different microcode patch. This shouldn't be a problem but since there are 4 SKUs of Bay Trail and using the microcode for the wrong SKU will *APPEAR* to work, but cause issues later, the microcode can cause massive amounts of confusion. 3) The way that the microcode is currently being included is (to my understanding) completely against the Intel licensing. We're compiling a .h file with a license that says that it *CANNOT* be made GPL into a file with a GPL header. As far as I understand, this is a "Bad Thing". I think that this goes for ALL of the Intel platforms in coreboot currently. If you look at the license from the Intel download site where the microcode that is currently checked into the coreboot tree comes from, I'm not convinced that what we're doing is really okay. I could be wrong, but my current thinking is that it really shouldn't be handled the way we're doing it. I've been working on turning the microcode into binary blobs that can be included without compiling and linking against the GPL code, but I don't have anything ready to submit yet. 4) The FSP is supposed to give a warning at boot time if the microcode doesn't load correctly, but I'm speculating that it may be accessing an MSR that is not legal if the microcode isn't loaded and is hanging instead. This prevents coreboot from notifying the user with a post code that the microcode wasn't loaded and just leaves a 0x0000 on the post code display. Because this is done before there's any serial output, the user has no way of knowing what the problem is. 5) The (b3) microcode should be included automatically already if the mainboard "Configure defaults for the Intel FSP package" option is selected. I'm trying to figure out why the Kconfig select statements in the bayleybay_fsp directory aren't enabling the correct options. As I said in my last note, the code is there to enable everything, and it works if nothing is selected, but once the selections are made, they don't change automatically the way I had intended. I'm still looking at this, but so far I haven't gotten it to work as I wanted. I may have to go back and re-write some of the other options to be selected by a default setting and then use the select to set the default. I'm not sure yet. Martin On 06/04/2014 12:59 PM, WANG FEI wrote: > I thought microcode files are kind of patches for CPU, it suppose to > be loaded before MRC just in case it fixes any issues related with > CPU. I actually did encounter an system random halt issue related with > no loading microcode before MRC training. > > Martin, how do you think to display a warning during coreboot > compiling if PLATFORM_USES_FSP selected but microcode does not > configure properly. > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Martin Roth <martin.roth(a)se-eng.com > <mailto:martin.roth@se-eng.com>> wrote: > > Thanks Paul. > > I'm working on a fix for this. Right now the option get selected > correctly if you set it at the first menuconfig run. If you go > back and select the microcode options later, they don't get > correctly enabled even though they're turned on with a select > statement. > > I hope to have a patch up for this today. > > Martin > > > > > On 06/03/2014 04:17 PM, Paul Menzel wrote: > > Dear Gerald, > > > Am Dienstag, den 03.06.2014, 14:03 +0200 schrieb Gerald Otter: > > I am trying to run coreboot + seabios payload on the > bayley bay crb > with the recently committed FSP integration, but have had > no luck so > far. > This crb uses the bay trail I (now atom e3800) soc from intel. > > Following the instructions from commit d75800c7f , I have > built a 2MB > image and flashed it to the upper 2MB of the 8MB flash, > leaving the > TXE / flash descriptor intact. > I have added the config from the build. The FSP I used is > BAYTRAIL_FSP_GOLD_002_10-JANUARY-2014, together with the flash > descriptor and TXE from the 80.21 bios provided by intel, > and vga bios > 36.2.2. > Fwiw, I have tried both the 32bit and 64bit releases of > the bios, even > though the flash descriptor and TXE binary seem to be > exactly the > same. > > The issue I’m running into is that I have no idea if > anything is > running at all. > There is no output on the VGA/HDMI ports or uart. > > The legacy uart referred to in the source is working > correctly with > the original intel bios, but does not produce any output > with the > coreboot image. > I have tried the most common baud rates (115200, 19200, > 9600 ) and did > some measurements with a scope in case I got the baud rate > wrong, but > no cigar. > The uart I’m using is the PCU uart, as opposed to > hsuart1/2 and the > superIO uart. This matches with the configuration in > coreboot when > compared to the datasheet, so I’m assuming I got this set up > correctly. > Unfortunately, this is about all the information I have, > so I hope I > am missing something obvious when building the image / > flashing it, > etc. > > […] > > it looks like you are missing the microcode. (Next time please > also send > the output of `build/cbfstool build/coreboot.rom print`.) > > Could you please test if selecting “Generate from tree” in the > prompt > “Include CPU microcode in CBFS”? > > In the `.config`, instead of > > # CONFIG_CPU_MICROCODE_CBFS_GENERATE is not set > # CONFIG_CPU_MICROCODE_CBFS_EXTERNAL is not set > CONFIG_CPU_MICROCODE_CBFS_NONE=y > > you should have the one below. > > CONFIG_CPU_MICROCODE_CBFS_GENERATE=y > # CONFIG_CPU_MICROCODE_CBFS_EXTERNAL is not set > # CONFIG_CPU_MICROCODE_CBFS_NONE is not set > > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > <mailto:coreboot@coreboot.org> > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > >

4 8

Re: [coreboot] setting smbios values from the OS
by Rafael Vanoni 22 Jun '14

22 Jun '14

On 06/17/2014 01:12 AM, Christian Gmeiner wrote: > 2014-06-16 19:05 GMT+02:00 Rafael Vanoni <rafael.vanoni(a)pluribusnetworks.com>: >> On 06/13/2014 09:40 AM, Marc Jones wrote: >>> >>> Rafael, >>> >>> i don't think that you can update them once the OS loads. The OS would >>> have already made decisions based on the settings. >>> >>> Marc >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Rafael Vanoni >>> <rafael.vanoni(a)pluribusnetworks.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi folks, first time posting here. I was wondering if it would be >>>> possible >>>> to modify smbios values once a system is up and running. Has anyone ever >>>> looked into that? If not, any pointers on how to implement this would be >>>> greatly appreciated. I'm fairly new to coreboot but would like to look >>>> into >>>> this. >>>> >>>> This is with coreboot + seabios, btw. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Rafael >>>> >>>> >> >> >> Hi Marc, >> >> That's true, but my intention is to modify more 'informational' fields like >> version, sn, etc. Nothing that would break the OS. >> > > Wrong: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i=DMI_MATCH > > You can modify dmi values in coreboot - see bachmann/ot205 > > greets > -- > Christian Gmeiner, MSc > > https://soundcloud.com/christian-gmeiner > Ok, is there a tool or library to edit DMI values ? Thanks, Rafael

6 10

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot June 2014