March 2016 - coreboot - mail.coreboot.org

Is windows driver for EHCI DEBUG available.
by Zheng Bao March 18, 2016

March 18, 2016

Hi, all, http://www.coreboot.org/DIY_EHCI_debug_dongle http://www.coreboot.org/EHCI_debug_dongle I want to build a EHCI debug dongle based on above links. I am wondering if the windows driver of the dongle is available. I google it but can not find it. I assume it is a generic driver. Who knows about that? Thanks. Zheng

1 0

Re: [coreboot] [GSoC 2016] ROM-O-Matic project
by Yurii Shevtsov March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

Thanks for your reply, it clarifies the main idea for me. 2016-03-17 23:56 GMT+02:00 Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com>: > Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you on this. > > The build needs to happen with the correct toolchain to generate a rom > that is similar (or identical) to the original rom that was tested in the > board status. That would be done with with 'make crossgcc'. If I try to > build a rom that was submitted 8 months ago, I'd want to use the toolchain > that was in use 8 months ago, not today's toolchain. > So I need to came up with some mechanism to store multiple toolchain version. > Boards that are in the board status repo: > https://review.coreboot.org/gitweb/cgit/board-status.git/tree/amd > These are boards that have been tested. These submissions are known to at > least boot (with the configuration that was used to test the rom). > > Any valid board: > https://review.coreboot.org/gitweb/cgit/coreboot.git/tree/src/mainboard/amd > The source code for these boards is in the codebase, but we have no way of > knowing whether it's currently booting or not until we actually test it. > Did I understand correctly, that there is no possibility to automatically test all these boards, because they require specific hardware, which can't be emulated? So, if user wants to build and flash one, he takes all responsibility? > As the project proposal says, first we want to just build roms that are > already present in the board status database. We have a config already > present for these, so we don't need to ask any configuration options at > all, just give them a list of boards that they can build a rom for. We > also don't need to give users every option available in Kconfig. Maybe we > give them an edit window that they can paste a config into or edit an > existing config. > > The preference would be to do everything on the server or in the browser > though. We would really prefer not to have any scripts that need to be run > on the user's system. > I strongly agree about this. > > Martin > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:33 PM Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> I can't see any other way, it's all about running the commands. Browsers >>> can't do this. Certain actions are still required from user. Some shell >>> script, which will run commands and then send stdout to the server, can be >>> developed though. >>> >>>> >>>> >> >> the board-status script can send the ref and the configuraiton. >> >> That's not part of rom-o-matic. >> >> Further, tools at coreboot.org and create the tables whih rom-o-matic >> uses to present choices to the user. >> >> That's what I was wondering, anyway. >> >> ron >> > >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] [GSoC 2016] ROM-O-Matic project
by Martin Roth March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you on this. The build needs to happen with the correct toolchain to generate a rom that is similar (or identical) to the original rom that was tested in the board status. That would be done with with 'make crossgcc'. If I try to build a rom that was submitted 8 months ago, I'd want to use the toolchain that was in use 8 months ago, not today's toolchain. Boards that are in the board status repo: https://review.coreboot.org/gitweb/cgit/board-status.git/tree/amd These are boards that have been tested. These submissions are known to at least boot (with the configuration that was used to test the rom). Any valid board: https://review.coreboot.org/gitweb/cgit/coreboot.git/tree/src/mainboard/amd The source code for these boards is in the codebase, but we have no way of knowing whether it's currently booting or not until we actually test it. As the project proposal says, first we want to just build roms that are already present in the board status database. We have a config already present for these, so we don't need to ask any configuration options at all, just give them a list of boards that they can build a rom for. We also don't need to give users every option available in Kconfig. Maybe we give them an edit window that they can paste a config into or edit an existing config. The preference would be to do everything on the server or in the browser though. We would really prefer not to have any scripts that need to be run on the user's system. Martin On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:33 PM Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I can't see any other way, it's all about running the commands. Browsers >> can't do this. Certain actions are still required from user. Some shell >> script, which will run commands and then send stdout to the server, can be >> developed though. >> >>> >>> > > the board-status script can send the ref and the configuraiton. > > That's not part of rom-o-matic. > > Further, tools at coreboot.org and create the tables whih rom-o-matic > uses to present choices to the user. > > That's what I was wondering, anyway. > > ron >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] [GSoC 2016] ROM-O-Matic project
by ron minnich March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:33 PM Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I can't see any other way, it's all about running the commands. Browsers > can't do this. Certain actions are still required from user. Some shell > script, which will run commands and then send stdout to the server, can be > developed though. > >> >> the board-status script can send the ref and the configuraiton. That's not part of rom-o-matic. Further, tools at coreboot.org and create the tables whih rom-o-matic uses to present choices to the user. That's what I was wondering, anyway. ron

1 0

Re: [coreboot] [GSoC 2016] ROM-O-Matic project
by Yurii Shevtsov March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

2016-03-17 22:57 GMT+02:00 ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com>: > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:30 PM Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> >> I like it too. Maybe we can ask users on rom-o-matic to provide neccesary >> info for further project improvement >> > > no, it has to be automated or it won't work. > I can't see any other way, it's all about running the commands. Browsers can't do this. Certain actions are still required from user. Some shell script, which will run commands and then send stdout to the server, can be developed though. > ron >

1 0

Target candidate: Dell Latitude E4300
by persmule March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

Hi, I have found a potential target Dell Latitude E4300 for libreboot (and coreboot), for its similarity with Thinkpad X200S and X200T. This one uses GS45, with (S)P9X00 family cpu (its sibling model e4200 uses SU family cpu), like the X200S and X200T which is supported in coreboot (and libreboot) with gerrit's patch. And not like Latitude E6400, this model uses DDR3 RAM (more like X200S/T). This model uses SMSC FDC37M602, which is already supported with coreboot. Because the succeed for GS45 in X200S/T, I think it's a good porting target for coreboot and libreboot. I managed to get the firmware layout with flashrom(1), which is attached with stdout of flashrom. May they be useful to you. What does the community think about this? Worth it? And, waiting for certain goods' arrival, I plan to disassemble my E4300 to cleanse its cooler and heatsink, and siphon out the whole BIOS image, which will be sent to you soon, too. Regards, Persmule.

4 3

Re: [coreboot] [GSoC 2016] Proposal review
by Yurii Shevtsov March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

2016-03-17 23:00 GMT+02:00 David Hendricks <dhendrix(a)google.com>: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello. Three days passed, but unfortunately I haven't got any feedback on >> my draft yet. >> > > If you make the doc public then you might get more responses. > David, you convinced me. Thanks for your advice. Now it's public! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rxKXzbaq9w4EthVIP2O5mqXaTJTzK3IKsnbVOWv… > > Martin and Ron are both very busy people and might simply have been too > busy with work this week. > > GSOC is all about open source coding and community engagement. Keeping > your doc private is not a good way to start... > > >> Although, I can see Martin Roth is watching my proposal. Also I'm still >> not assigned to any task. Spare me some time, please :-) >> Thanks in advance >> >> 2016-03-14 23:11 GMT+02:00 Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> I know we haven't discussed project properly yet, and I understand my >>> vision of project may vary from yours. So feel free to point me on a right >>> way :-) >>> Here is the link: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OWOYfKMUSZTi4tTHmGIIY27KAbM5MJVV0Ddirjp… >>> >>> I made my proposal draft private. As for now I shared it with Ron >>> Minnich and Martin Roth. If you part of a GSoC commission, I'll add you too >>> (head to the doc link). >>> >>> Unfortunately, I haven't submitted any patch yet. Please, assign me to a >>> task. >>> >> >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >> > > > > -- > David Hendricks (dhendrix) > Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc. >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] [GSoC 2016] Proposal review
by David Hendricks March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello. Three days passed, but unfortunately I haven't got any feedback on > my draft yet. > If you make the doc public then you might get more responses. Martin and Ron are both very busy people and might simply have been too busy with work this week. GSOC is all about open source coding and community engagement. Keeping your doc private is not a good way to start... > Although, I can see Martin Roth is watching my proposal. Also I'm still > not assigned to any task. Spare me some time, please :-) > Thanks in advance > > 2016-03-14 23:11 GMT+02:00 Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com>: > >> I know we haven't discussed project properly yet, and I understand my >> vision of project may vary from yours. So feel free to point me on a right >> way :-) >> Here is the link: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OWOYfKMUSZTi4tTHmGIIY27KAbM5MJVV0Ddirjp… >> >> I made my proposal draft private. As for now I shared it with Ron Minnich >> and Martin Roth. If you part of a GSoC commission, I'll add you too (head >> to the doc link). >> >> Unfortunately, I haven't submitted any patch yet. Please, assign me to a >> task. >> > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > -- David Hendricks (dhendrix) Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] [GSoC 2016] ROM-O-Matic project
by ron minnich March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:30 PM Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I like it too. Maybe we can ask users on rom-o-matic to provide neccesary > info for further project improvement > no, it has to be automated or it won't work. ron

1 0

Re: [coreboot] [GSoC 2016] Proposal review
by ron minnich March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

I can't access the document On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:40 PM Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello. Three days passed, but unfortunately I haven't got any feedback on > my draft yet. Although, I can see Martin Roth is watching my proposal. Also > I'm still not assigned to any task. Spare me some time, please :-) > Thanks in advance > > 2016-03-14 23:11 GMT+02:00 Yurii Shevtsov <ungetch(a)gmail.com>: > >> I know we haven't discussed project properly yet, and I understand my >> vision of project may vary from yours. So feel free to point me on a right >> way :-) >> Here is the link: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OWOYfKMUSZTi4tTHmGIIY27KAbM5MJVV0Ddirjp… >> >> I made my proposal draft private. As for now I shared it with Ron Minnich >> and Martin Roth. If you part of a GSoC commission, I'll add you too (head >> to the doc link). >> >> Unfortunately, I haven't submitted any patch yet. Please, assign me to a >> task. >> > >

1 0