coreboot November 2015

coreboot@coreboot.org

38 participants
97 discussions

Re: [coreboot] Removal of AGESA - to be or NOT to be? A story of G505S
by Alex G. 08 Nov '15

08 Nov '15

On 11/07/2015 09:23 AM, ron minnich wrote: > Can we calm down? Vladimir, your note came out after I -2'ed Alex's > proposal and we have made it clear that the proposal to "Remove" AGESA > is just that -- a proposal. It's not going to happen. Please, let me troll on this one. I'm having so much fun. Alex

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Removal of AGESA - to be or NOT to be? A story of G505S
by Alex G. 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

On 11/07/2015 06:12 AM, Vladimir wrote: > That is why Francis suggested adding it to coreboot LTS Candidates list, > not to Libreboot list - because, while Lenovo G505S seems to be a great > coreboot LTS Candidate , it is still not ready for Libreboot. LTS requirements were meant to weed in hardware that is truly free. We failed at that. libreboot succeeded where we failed. If it's not in libreboot, it doesn't qualify for the LTS list. Also, I doubt Francis appreciates people using his name and the libreboot name in a way which makes it seem like he, or the libreboot project endorses blobbed hardware. The libreboot project does not endorse the Lenovo G505s. > Which is a real pity, because there are no AMD laptops supported by Libreboot And there most likely won't be. I did the bringup for the first AMD laptop ever to be supported by coreboot. The g505 is almost an identical copy of my work. I used AGESA, and spent over half the time debugging and fixing AGESA to make it suitable for the task. I am very intimate with the details of that hardware, and why the chances of it ever hitting libreboot are infinitesimal. > yet... Nope. I've tried. You need linux to use the integrated GPU without a VBIOS in order for this to work to libreboot standards. The maintainers of the radeon driver have made it very clear that they will have none of that. In plain english, the coreboot image will have to bundle the VBIOS in order for the machine to work as intended. > In any case, Lenovo G505S matches all the requirements for it to > be considered among the Coreboot LTS Candidates list : > > * RYF-certifiable - [V] check Nope. See above. > * Sturdy - [V] check Really? I was going to buy one a few years back. It did not feel sturdy at all. > * Long shelf life - [V] check Less than three years left? I think the bar here is closer to ten years. > * Cool factor - [V] check The low-end lenovo machines are anything but cool, but then this is a subjective matter, so I'll let you win this point. > Actually it was you who came up with these requirements : > > http://www.coreboot.org/User_talk:MrNuke/LTS_Candidates#Requirements: Yup. Yours truly. > Sorry, but it is a really bad idea to treat LTS Candidate as a second > grade citizen The LTS idea died over a year ago because there wasn't any hardware to match the requirements. The libreboot project took those ideals and whatever hardware they support is essentially LTS. If you want hardware that is true in spirit to the LTS requirements, then please head over to http://minifree.org/ . > Lenovo is open to requests of motherboards (as well as requests for > [...] > sale tax), so any physical person could get them even at 1pcs quantities ;) Do you have a link to Lenovo's policy on such? > Undoubtedly, Francis Rowe I will stop trying to prevent people from tarnishing his or libreboot's reputation by suggesting he or the libreboot project endorses blobbed hardware. Just pointing out that they don't endorse it. > please keep in mind that coreboot is GNU GPL project, and Thank you master for enlightening me! Let's see... coreboot is _not_ a GNU project. It is licensed to you under the terms of the GPLv2. > you have transferred your G505S code to public domain I did? I was pretty certain I reserved all rights and licensed it to other people (you included). Maybe GPLv2+ got lost somewhere in translation. > Imagine, what if someone would suddenly decide to revert/branch off all > his significant contributions to a Linux kernel? People simply would not > let it happen! So I doubt that you can do anything you want with your > important commits to coreboot repository, be it a branch or anything > else as significant, > without considering the opinion of other coreboot people There are coreboot users, coreboot developers, and coreboot developers whom I have worked with in the past, and whom have earned my trust and respect. The mostly care of the opinions and thoughts of the latter, while also being sensitive to the needs of the middle, and trying to accommodate the former. But you'll have to find someone else to support you in your endeavors with the code in question. You can't require that I continue to support you. I'm on the Tim Pearson bandwagon now, with native init, and much cleaner and easier to integrate code. > First of all, it would be interesting to see a detailed report > describing a process of how you came up with such a round value ( $1300> ) electricity costs : $50/month * 12 months = $600 Flying in for maintenance: unpaid workday: $400 + plane ticket cost $520 = $920 replacement hardware costs $170 x 3 = 510 Total: $2030 60% if that is $1218, so I was off by $82. sue me. Note that that doesn't include vehicle rental costs, gas costs, transportation to/from airport, etc. > It is not that fair for you to ask $1300 from a single person My asking for payment for my running costs was a rhetorical statement on the issue of making efficient use of resources, and not a bill. > you could set up a crowdfunding at Crowd Supply I don't mind paying the bills. What I do mind, is people taking that for granted and demanding that I support them out of my own pocket, then calling me out and throwing baseless accusations at me when I suggest making more efficient use of the limited resources we have. > Actually I have expressed my desire to participate in AGESA -> Native > Init porting, Gerrit is open for business 24/7. > but as I said before I can't do it all alone because I don't have enough experience. The only person who has the needed experience to port to that codebase is Tim Pearson. Everyone else is still learning. > In my earlier messages I already told what sense I am putting behind > these words. > Master branch will be receiving all the love: important bug > fixes as well as great new features, That doesn't mean that AGESA boards in master tree will receive the same. That part of the codebase has matured and stabilized, even if that means "don't touch it because it's so fragile". > Meanwhile, nobody is going to constantly track check and copy all these commits to this separate > branch, That's already happening (or not happening) today. If I add a new feature and part of the codebase requires major rework to accomodate that feature, I just make it optional. A lot of other developers operate that way. Making changes of global nature is extremely difficult. > which means it would be abandoned. There are still plenty of users of that codebase that I suspect the branch would be very much alive for years. > I am not going to stay silent and watch how my > precious toys are broken and are taken away. And that's the problem of perception. coreboot is not a toy. > Your logical separation (regardless of how we call it) - it WILL > negatively affect a support for alive boards! I cannot stress it enough: I think you're stressing quite well. > Your recent proposals (in case if they would be accepted) will > negatively affect many boards, including the alive boards - such as > G505S, a coreboot LTS candidate. If you were expecting the praises of > approval and kind words for such intentions - well, I am sorry to bust > your expectations Every developer expects some god damn respect for their work and involvement, especially from users with little to no contributions. [mrnuke@nukepro coreboot]$ git log |grep quickcracktime -c 0 Alex

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Removal of AGESA - to be or NOT to be? A story of G505S
by ron minnich 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

Can we calm down? Vladimir, your note came out after I -2'ed Alex's proposal and we have made it clear that the proposal to "Remove" AGESA is just that -- a proposal. It's not going to happen. Thanks ron On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 6:12 AM Vladimir <quickcracktime(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote: > > > > Did you know that G505s is unsuitable for libreboot due to the many > > blobs it needs (VBIOS, SMU, IMC, make your pick) ? > > > > That is why Francis suggested adding it to coreboot LTS Candidates list, > not to Libreboot list - because, while Lenovo G505S seems to be a great > coreboot LTS Candidate , it is still not ready for Libreboot. Which is a > real pity, because there are no AMD laptops supported by Libreboot yet... > In any case, Lenovo G505S matches all the requirements for it to be > considered among the Coreboot LTS Candidates list : > > * RYF-certifiable - [V] check > * Sturdy - [V] check > * Long shelf life - [V] check > * Cool factor - [V] check > > Actually it was you who came up with these requirements : > > http://www.coreboot.org/User_talk:MrNuke/LTS_Candidates#Requirements: > > Sorry, but it is a really bad idea to treat LTS Candidate as a second > grade citizen > > > > > >>> On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote: > > > >> * Did you know that Compal will still be making LA-A091P laptop > >> motherboard, the primary component of G505S, at least until the end of > >> 2018 year? > > > > And this is based on what? > > > > Lenovo is open to requests of motherboards (as well as requests for other > internal components) coming from repair workshops, for a specific Lenovo > laptop model - at least until the end of Service Lifetime of the last > manufactured Lenovo laptop of this specific model. Lenovo stopped making > G505S at the end of 2014 year, however they set a Service Lifetime of G505S > model as 4 calendar years, which means that our repair workshop can request > motherboards from Lenovo for this laptop model until the end of 2014 + 4 > years = end of 2018 year . Unless Lenovo would suddenly change their rules > or would break up their partnership agreement with Compal, Compal will > still be making motherboards for G505S until the end of 2018 year, based on > requests from Lenovo which in turn based on requests from repair workshops. > Although the minimal order quantity is 10pcs for us, we collaborate with > smart people who have technical knowledge and could swap motherboards by > themselves: we resell extra motherboards which we dont need for a small > additional profit (+ sale tax), so any physical person could get them even > at 1pcs quantities ;) > > Undoubtedly, Francis Rowe was 100% right while he was suggesting a Lenovo > G505S to be added to Coreboot LTS Candidates list. This wonderful machine > is still sold at many places and has a long life ahead > > > > > >>> On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote: > > > > I wrote most of the code to get it running in the first place. > > > >> > >> * Did you know that Lenovo G505S is still widely available at some parts > >> of the world? (e.g. in Russia, 50+ online shops are still selling it) > >> > > > > Yeah, I wrote most of the code for that. > > > > Thank you very much, dear friend, I really respect you for that :) But > please keep in mind that coreboot is GNU GPL project, and you have > transferred your G505S code to public domain at the very date of upload. > Imagine, what if someone would suddenly decide to revert/branch off all his > significant contributions to a Linux kernel? People simply would not let it > happen! So I doubt that you can do anything you want with your important > commits to coreboot repository, be it a branch or anything else as > significant, without considering the opinion of other coreboot people > > > > > >>> On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote: > > > > I also happen to run one of the build servers. Here's a deal, you pay > > for 60% of the running costs of the server (the amount of time agesa > > builds take out of total time), and I'll stop whining. You owe me $1300 > > for the year 2015, pal. > > > > First of all, it would be interesting to see a detailed report describing > a process of how you came up with such a round value ( $1300 ) . Secondly, > there are a lot of people who are using coreboot on AGESA hardware; and > also, my main concern here lies with just 1 board. It is not that fair for > you to ask $1300 from a single person , and because of my financial > struggles I could invest $200 at max. If you are seriously estimating these > running costs as $1300/year , you could set up a crowdfunding at Crowd > Supply - Richard Stallman considers it a preferred platform for > crowdfunding the open source software/hardware projects > > > > > >>> On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote: > > > > Geesh! Why don't you take over full maintainership of AGESA before > > whining why people who worked on that code no longer want to support it? > > > > Actually I have expressed my desire to participate in AGESA -> Native Init > porting, but as I said before I can't do it all alone because I don't have > enough experience. If you could show some good examples of AGESA -> Native > Init porting, which could aid me in learning process, then we can do it > together. Or I can be a build tester and constantly test your builds on my > hardware (and maybe donate Money/Things to you to support your efforts) > > > > >>> On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote: > > > >> > >> branch it off to some abandoned branch that nobody would care about. > > >> > > > > You would obviously care about it, so that's a moot point. > > > > <sarcasm_alert> We either keep everything in a "master" branch, or it's > dead. </sarcasm_alert> > > > > In my earlier messages I already told what sense I am putting behind these > words. Master branch will be receiving all the love: important bug fixes as > well as great new features, which would be a part of code thats common for > all the boards in a master branch. Meanwhile, nobody is going to constantly > track check and copy all these commits to this separate branch, which means > it would be abandoned. > > > > > >>> On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote: > > > > I agreed to leave these discussions behind. I don't know why people > > _still_ keep bringing it up. > > > > As you said before, > > > > > Experience tells us that people are silent until their (broken) toys are > taken away, and only then start crying. > > > > I dont know what you have been expecting, but I am not going to be a part > of this experience. I am not going to stay silent and watch how my precious > toys are broken and are taken away. I am going to stand up for all the > coreboot users/developers who are using coreboot on their G505S machine > > > > > >>> On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote: > > > >> > >> PLEASE do NOT submit proposals that will negatively affect a support for > >> alive boards, because > >> > > > > If you want to treat logical separation as removal, that's on you > > > > Your logical separation (regardless of how we call it) - it WILL > negatively affect a support for alive boards! I cannot stress it enough: > > > > > Master branch will be receiving all the love: important bug fixes as > well as great new features, which would be a part of code thats common for > all the boards in a master branch. Meanwhile, > nobody is going to > constantly track check and copy all these commits to this separate branch, > which means it would be abandoned. > > > > > > >>> On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote: > > > >> > >> such malevolent plans are a great insult to a bright spirit of coreboot > ! > > >> > > > > I'm insulted by your portrayal of me as aforementioned > > > > Your recent proposals (in case if they would be accepted) will negatively > affect many boards, including the alive boards - such as G505S, a coreboot > LTS candidate. If you were expecting the praises of approval and kind words > for such intentions - well, I am sorry to bust your expectations > > Best regards, > Vladimir Shipovalov > > On 7 November 2015 at 12:18, Alex G. <mr.nuke.me(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/06/2015 02:11 AM, Vladimir wrote: >> > * Did you know that Lenovo G505S is still widely available at some parts >> > of the world? (e.g. in Russia, 50+ online shops are still selling it) >> >> Yeah, I wrote most of the code for that. >> >> > * Did you know that Francis Rowe, head Libreboot developer, has proposed >> > the addition of G505S to Coreboot LTS Candidates list of laptops? >> >> Did you know that G505s is unsuitable for libreboot due to the many >> blobs it needs (VBIOS, SMU, IMC, make your pick) ? >> >> > * Did you know that Compal will still be making LA-A091P laptop >> > motherboard, the primary component of G505S, at least until the end of >> > 2018 year? >> >> And this is based on what? >> >> > It is unbelievable that some people here want to take alive-and-kicking >> > motherboard and 'remove it' >> >> I wrote most of the code to get it running in the first place. >> >> > or degrade it into a 'second class citizen' - by branching >> >> Geesh! Why don't you take over full maintainership of AGESA before >> whining why people who worked on that code no longer want to support it? >> >> > it off to some abandoned branch that nobody would care about. >> >> You would obviously care about it, so that's a moot point. >> >> > Don't know which is worse... >> >> I agreed to leave these discussions behind. I don't know why people >> _still_ keep bringing it up. >> >> >>>> Someone wrote: >> >> That was me >> >> >> I'm looking forward to seeing the draft of the removal plans. Maybe >> >> removal is even better than branching >> >> <sarcasm_alert> >> Yes. Because everything is black and white. We either keep everything in >> a "master" branch, or it's dead. >> </sarcasm_alert> >> >> > If Someone doesn't care about those boards which he doesn't own own, if >> > Someone has no idea how to set up makefiles so that they will not make >> > builds for boards that he doesn't care about, if Someone can't wait a >> > few more extra minutes of compilation because he is in a 'great hurry': >> >> I also happen to run one of the build servers. Here's a deal, you pay >> for 60% of the running costs of the server (the amount of time agesa >> builds take out of total time), and I'll stop whining. You owe me $1300 >> for the year 2015, pal. >> >> > then he should start his 'Removal Quest' from old boards like Intel I945 >> > and AMD K8 - if nobody runs coreboot on them anymore. >> > Or from his own board, if his own board is EOL and old... >> >> WOW! Guess what. You didn't git log AGESA boards. Hint: I'm "removing" >> (your words, not mine) a lot of the code that I worked on. >> >> > PLEASE do NOT submit proposals that will negatively affect a support for >> > alive boards, because >> >> If you want to treat logical separation as removal, that's on you. I'd >> appreciate it if you stopped throwing baseless accusations around >> because you feel that makes your argument stronger. >> >> > such malevolent plans >> >> Sure, I'm the enemy. I'm certain Stefan will love this one! >> >> > are a great insult >> >> I'm insulted by your portrayal of me as aforementioned. I've invested a >> lot of my personal time and resources into coreboot, with nothing but >> good intentions. I don't feel you truly have a grasp of all the facts >> and headaches of doing coreboot on such a scale. So I'd really >> appreciate you taking a step back and trying to get an overview every >> once in a while. >> >> 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] Removal of AGESA - to be or NOT to be? A story of G505S
by Alex G. 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

On 11/06/2015 02:11 AM, Vladimir wrote: > * Did you know that Lenovo G505S is still widely available at some parts > of the world? (e.g. in Russia, 50+ online shops are still selling it) Yeah, I wrote most of the code for that. > * Did you know that Francis Rowe, head Libreboot developer, has proposed > the addition of G505S to Coreboot LTS Candidates list of laptops? Did you know that G505s is unsuitable for libreboot due to the many blobs it needs (VBIOS, SMU, IMC, make your pick) ? > * Did you know that Compal will still be making LA-A091P laptop > motherboard, the primary component of G505S, at least until the end of > 2018 year? And this is based on what? > It is unbelievable that some people here want to take alive-and-kicking > motherboard and 'remove it' I wrote most of the code to get it running in the first place. > or degrade it into a 'second class citizen' - by branching Geesh! Why don't you take over full maintainership of AGESA before whining why people who worked on that code no longer want to support it? > it off to some abandoned branch that nobody would care about. You would obviously care about it, so that's a moot point. > Don't know which is worse... I agreed to leave these discussions behind. I don't know why people _still_ keep bringing it up. >>>> Someone wrote: That was me >> I'm looking forward to seeing the draft of the removal plans. Maybe >> removal is even better than branching <sarcasm_alert> Yes. Because everything is black and white. We either keep everything in a "master" branch, or it's dead. </sarcasm_alert> > If Someone doesn't care about those boards which he doesn't own own, if > Someone has no idea how to set up makefiles so that they will not make > builds for boards that he doesn't care about, if Someone can't wait a > few more extra minutes of compilation because he is in a 'great hurry': I also happen to run one of the build servers. Here's a deal, you pay for 60% of the running costs of the server (the amount of time agesa builds take out of total time), and I'll stop whining. You owe me $1300 for the year 2015, pal. > then he should start his 'Removal Quest' from old boards like Intel I945 > and AMD K8 - if nobody runs coreboot on them anymore. > Or from his own board, if his own board is EOL and old... WOW! Guess what. You didn't git log AGESA boards. Hint: I'm "removing" (your words, not mine) a lot of the code that I worked on. > PLEASE do NOT submit proposals that will negatively affect a support for > alive boards, because If you want to treat logical separation as removal, that's on you. I'd appreciate it if you stopped throwing baseless accusations around because you feel that makes your argument stronger. > such malevolent plans Sure, I'm the enemy. I'm certain Stefan will love this one! > are a great insult I'm insulted by your portrayal of me as aforementioned. I've invested a lot of my personal time and resources into coreboot, with nothing but good intentions. I don't feel you truly have a grasp of all the facts and headaches of doing coreboot on such a scale. So I'd really appreciate you taking a step back and trying to get an overview every once in a while. Alex

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Removal of AGESA - to be or NOT to be? A story of G505S
by Timothy Pearson 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/06/2015 03:13 PM, Vladimir wrote: > Yes, I really want to participate in the Lenovo G505S porting from AGESA > to Native Init ! But, to be honest, I have never done such a task > before, so my experience is probably not enough for doing this port > alone by myself : I cannot even estimate the amount of necessary work > and don't know where to start... (Dear Timothy, could you please point > me to any good examples of AGESA --> Native Init porting?) However, I > will be very glad to help as much as I could by being a build tester: I > can constantly test these "native init" builds on my hardware - as many > build iterations as it needed in order to help make "Native Init" a > stable and good enough candidate for replacing AGESA > > Also I will seriously consider donating some Money/Things to those > coreboot developers who will make significant commits for bringing G505S > "Native Init" port to life, although my financial abilities became very > limited after Rubble currency collapse so unfortunately I cannot > guarantee this type of support as well as how much would be the amount > of donations... > > Lenovo G505S uses quad core A10-5750M APU which is Richland > architecture. This architecture does not include PSP hardware ( ARM > TrustZone security co-processor) , so luckily this Family 15h RL laptop > does not need a PSP blob ;-) > > By the way there are just two AMD-based laptops that are supported by > coreboot, and another one is HP M6-1035DX which has weaker hardware / > smaller availability / lack of manufacturer support (HP quickly forgets > their old laptop models and probably already stopped replacement > motherboards production for this laptop - but I'd be happy to be wrong > here) . As for now, G505S seems to be the only AMD laptop which is > supported by coreboot and is really alive , so hopefully its code will > be allowed to stay in its AGESA shape until a stable "Native Init" > replacement will be introduced > > Best regards, > Vladimir Shipovalov Unfortunately I don't think there are any guides for porting from AGESA to native initialisation. In theory it might be best to copy a known working native laptop (e.g. a Family 10h/K8 machine), then bring over all the code from the AGESA board that is machine specific. The biggest concern here is that this is an APU-based machine, and as such I have no idea if there is non-AGESA "chipset" support, or how difficult it would be to create said support. If there are any other developers on list that might be interested in helping out please chime in here! I would also imagine at minimum the person doing the power would need direct access to a G505S machine. - -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) http://www.raptorengineeringinc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWPTgMAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbKjYH/0egn3/01cI4Q3+IxNoah4pb UU64uYVPlwezP4rcEFFFEv9ueJavgKwtEO7CUF0zdWsAyPVqaopcEPFYr2Lg8FNr 6CEXZveIikwSpjeoa8ZSIuRVlm0m3V7oSJKfhnrqdOlr/ldGVB0gBgxyc72i4kLL 9UQkuFegvW42KFHKikjXFG46HjIHBUieZvt0dn5Ym1CuXyCdIlK202PcUOoiHdjb JJzGxtsq/ZfxZi6RaGIpVhYNQt4ReUGQq4aKO8hXwR7GTYheqLADfdDf3wqHMC2N w/NLDZ6Xy7N6LmI7Z+r0OrXI4aJpuog+TICTm5fOz2BCzRWrrTNxUbPbqyiEkS8= =sHPe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Removal of AGESA - to be or NOT to be? A story of G505S
by Timothy Pearson 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/06/2015 04:11 AM, Vladimir wrote: > While the possibility of AMD AGESA boards 'removal' is being discussed, > I would like to tell you about Lenovo G505S - which has Compal LA-A091P > AMD Family 15h RL AGESA board. > > * Did you know that Lenovo G505S is still widely available at some parts > of the world? (e.g. in Russia, 50+ online shops are still selling it) > * Did you know that Francis Rowe, head Libreboot developer, has proposed > the addition of G505S to Coreboot LTS Candidates list of laptops? > * Did you know that Compal will still be making LA-A091P laptop > motherboard, the primary component of G505S, at least until the end of > 2018 year? > (although these would be meant for Lenovo technical repair workshops, > any person will be able to buy them by request even at 1pcs quantities) > > It is unbelievable that some people here want to take alive-and-kicking > motherboard and 'remove it': either 'remove' a support for it > completely, or degrade it into a 'second class citizen' - by branching > it off to some abandoned branch that nobody would care about. Don't know > which is worse... Slightly off topic, but if the Lenovo G505S uses a Family 15h processor it should be possible to port it over to native initialisation (thus ensuring it's continued existence as a first class citizen, even if this discussion comes up again eventually). I was also unaware that true Family 15h CPUs had made their way into laptops; do you know if that particular device requires a PSP blob or not? One last comment regarding removal. At minimum I would expect that none of the boards, chipsets, or CPUs shown in the board status repository from at least the past few months should be candidates for removal. As you can see K8 is definitely listed: http://review.coreboot.org/gitweb?p=board-status.git;a=summary Thanks! - -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) http://www.raptorengineeringinc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWPOSUAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbfCYH/2VinnxsFdvVNiNjYIM5IO17 ThW6ezI/AocEiCE/PkXaLtDuhtaUpl4RFcp0ePcYc3/ybjLBGSwJgDUOKKZ5ZgA2 X8cbEykYVWQ1qSEID47wUrfz6zZNlxr70oF8OXHUVa5+Mxi88fHqzqd5yIoSoPYY 7vkiNG3Lw2vvb5/LkORp7Fy5jvkb+h53Af4FF5OFvMMoXR2F3BH/0fhvKn8GEzXW BZmEcxGfd6XEejKcEaZUM2I7FWb/INnisV1DxaLn8cJHsxn9GgTWK3X9ZqItNbta KF9koT8AiKCspT3EszhyXzw7q3A6GgpWLHIY/6mMWpqqyA30/I6DZl4UREDl93c= =s96E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Removal of AGESA - to be or NOT to be? A story of G505S
by Vladimir 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

While the possibility of AMD AGESA boards 'removal' is being discussed, I would like to tell you about Lenovo G505S - which has Compal LA-A091P AMD Family 15h RL AGESA board. * Did you know that Lenovo G505S is still widely available at some parts of the world? (e.g. in Russia, 50+ online shops are still selling it) * Did you know that Francis Rowe, head Libreboot developer, has proposed the addition of G505S to Coreboot LTS Candidates list of laptops? * Did you know that Compal will still be making LA-A091P laptop motherboard, the primary component of G505S, at least until the end of 2018 year? (although these would be meant for Lenovo technical repair workshops, any person will be able to buy them by request even at 1pcs quantities) It is unbelievable that some people here want to take alive-and-kicking motherboard and 'remove it': either 'remove' a support for it completely, or degrade it into a 'second class citizen' - by branching it off to some abandoned branch that nobody would care about. Don't know which is worse... > >>> Someone wrote: > I'm looking forward to seeing the draft of the removal plans. Maybe removal is even better than branching > If Someone doesn't care about those boards which he doesn't own own, if Someone has no idea how to set up makefiles so that they will not make builds for boards that he doesn't care about, if Someone can't wait a few more extra minutes of compilation because he is in a 'great hurry': then he should start his 'Removal Quest' from old boards like Intel I945 and AMD K8 - if nobody runs coreboot on them anymore. Or from his own board, if his own board is EOL and old... PLEASE do NOT submit proposals that will negatively affect a support for alive boards, because such malevolent plans are a great insult to the bright spirit of coreboot project ! Best regards, Vladimir Shipovalov

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Asus M2N-E no boot, post codes A5 80 73
by Balázs Vinarz 05 Nov '15

05 Nov '15

Hi, the first postlog is the same, so A5-80 in an endless loop, there was one time when its end with 79 then shuts down itself, thistime the memory is in the B1 slot. I was made a video at 60fps, and its more accurate, so the sequence is FF-88-80-88-78-72-28-29-24-29-25-55-89-73 than a shutdown, this time the memory is in the A1 slot. Im using a single-core Athlon64 3000+. I will have a try with the 2012 source, if i found one. Sadly im working on ramdisk, and the toolchain compile takes a while even if 4 cores :) Best regards. 2015-11-05 9:06 GMT+01:00 Kyösti Mälkki <kyosti.malkki(a)gmail.com>: > Please reply to list. > > Yes, you need better development setup than ramdisk. > > Kyösti >

1 0

amd/pademelon has push to https://github.com/BTDC/coreboot
by WANG Siyuan 05 Nov '15

05 Nov '15

Hi, all AMD has a low cost Carrizo board pademelon. We brought it up. The serial port works. But we don't test every feature. I push code to https://github.com/BTDC/coreboot , branch pademelon. src/mainboard/amd/ipc_fp4_lc is the mainboard code. I named it ipc_fp4_lc. I hope this is useful.

1 0

Fwd: sgabios ans grub2 payload (without SeaBIOS)
by maxime de Roucy 05 Nov '15

05 Nov '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: maxime de Roucy <maxime.deroucy(a)gmail.com> Date: 2015-11-05 10:25 GMT+01:00 Subject: Re: [coreboot] sgabios ans grub2 payload (without SeaBIOS) To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com> 2015-11-05 10:16 GMT+01:00 Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com>: > That isn't going to work I think. sgabios works by hijaking vgabios, > and when loaded as coreboot payload grub2 probably will not try to use > vgabios in the first place ... It works great when sgabios is run by SeaBIOS even if serial support disable in seabios and grub (so I am sure the serial output is generated by sgabios). -- Regards Maxime de Roucy

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot November 2015