coreboot February 2017

coreboot@coreboot.org

66 participants
212 discussions

Re: [coreboot] Contribution in coding
by Jonathan Neuschäfer 18 Feb '17

18 Feb '17

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 08:26:00PM +0530, rohit sharan wrote: > Hello sir, > > > > I would like to contribute some code and work with Coreboot . I am > currently studying in college 2nd year Computer science Engineering. As I > saw that Coreboot had participated in Google Summer of code 2016, I was > pretty much interested in working with Your organisation. > > > > I would appreciate if you can take some time out and guide me on any > project your company wishes to share with me and give me an opportunity to > work with experienced people like you. Hi, you can see some of our ideas for GSoC projects at [1]. Ultimately, it's up to you to choose a project. You are of course welcome to start learning about coreboot and contributing as soon as you like. Another useful resource about GSoC is the Student Guide[2]. [1]: https://www.coreboot.org/Project_Ideas [2]: http://write.flossmanuals.net/gsocstudentguide/what-is-google-summer-of-cod… > My Skill - C programming That's a good start :) Greetings, Jonathan Neuschäfer

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Contribution in coding
by ron minnich 18 Feb '17

18 Feb '17

I would certainly be happy if you were interested in working on the riscv port. We need to revive the 32-bit version. It would involve running on a simulator at first. If this sounds interesting let me know. On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 8:04 AM rohit sharan <rohit.sharan2008(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello sir, > > > > I would like to contribute some code and work with Coreboot . I am > currently studying in college 2nd year Computer science Engineering. As I > saw that Coreboot had participated in Google Summer of code 2016, I was > pretty much interested in working with Your organisation. > > > > I would appreciate if you can take some time out and guide me on any > project your company wishes to share with me and give me an opportunity to > work with experienced people like you. > > > > My Skill - C programming > > > > LinkedIn profile - https://www.linkedin.com/in/rohitsharan2008/ > > > > > > Best regards > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

1 0

Contribution in coding
by rohit sharan 18 Feb '17

18 Feb '17

Hello sir, I would like to contribute some code and work with Coreboot . I am currently studying in college 2nd year Computer science Engineering. As I saw that Coreboot had participated in Google Summer of code 2016, I was pretty much interested in working with Your organisation. I would appreciate if you can take some time out and guide me on any project your company wishes to share with me and give me an opportunity to work with experienced people like you. My Skill - C programming LinkedIn profile - https://www.linkedin.com/in/rohitsharan2008/ Best regards

1 0

Re: [coreboot] coreboot community meeting minutes for February 16, 2017
by Jonathan Neuschäfer 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:55:39PM +0000, ron minnich wrote: > what I've found on u-root and harvey is once we had slack, the mailing list > dropped to almost zero. Key word being almost, we still use the mailing > list for archival announcements. Well, we do have MatterMost now[1], which is like slack (so I've heard). Jonathan [1]: https://chat.coreboot.org/login

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Add coreboot storage driver
by Andrey Petrov 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

Hi there, tl;dr: We are considering adding early parallel code execution in coreboot. We need to discuss how this can be done. Nowadays we see firmware getting more complicated. At the same time CPUs do not necessarily catch up. Furthermore, recent increases in performance can be largely attributed to parallelism and stuffing more cores on die rather than sheer core computing power. However, firmware typically runs on just one CPU and is effectively barred from all the parallelism goodies available to OS software. For example Apollolake is struggling to finish firmware boot with all the whistles and bells (vboot, tpm and our friendly, ever-vigilant TXE) under one second. Interestingly, great deal of tasks that needs to be done are not even computation-bound. They are IO bound. In case of SDHCI below it is possible to train eMMC link to switch from default low-freq single data rate (sdr50) mode to high frequency dual data rate mode (hs400). This link training increases eMMC throughput by factor by 15-20. As result time it takes to load kernel in depthcharge goes down from 130ms to 10ms. However, the training sequence requires constant by frequent CPU attention. As result, it doesn't make any sense to try to turn on higher-frequency modes because you don't get any net win. We also experimented by starting work in current MPinit code. Unfortunately it starts pretty late in the game and we do not have enough parallel time to reap meaningful benefit. In order to address this problem we can do following things: 1. Add scheduler, early or not 2. Add early MPinit code For [1] I am aware of one scheduler discussion in 2013, but that was long time ago and things may have moved a bit. I do not want to be a necromancer and reanimate old discussion, but does anybody see it as a useful/viable thing to do? For [2] we have been working on prototype for Apollolake that does pre-memory MPinit. We've got to a stage where we can run C code on another core before DRAM is up (please do not try that at home, because you'd need custom experimental ucode). However, there are many questions what model to use and how to create infrastructure to run code in parallel in such early stage. Shall we just add "run this (mini) stage on this core" concept? Or shall we add tasklet/worklet structures that would allow code to live in run and when migration to DRAM happens have infrastructure take care of managing context and potentially resume it? One problem is that code running with CAR needs to stop by the time system is ready to tear down CAR and migrate to DRAM. We don't want to delay that by waiting on such task to complete. At the same time, certain task may have largely fluctuating run times so you would want to continue them. It is actually may be possible just to do that, if we use same address space for CAR and DRAM. But come to think of it, this is just a tip of iceberg and there are packs of other issues we would need to deal with. Does any of that make sense? Perhaps somebody thought of this before? Let's see what may be other ways to deal with this challenge. thanks Andrey On 01/25/2017 03:16 PM, Guvendik, Bora wrote: > Port sdhci and mmc driver from depthcharge to coreboot. The purpose is > to speed up boot time by starting > > storage initialization on another CPU in parallel. On the Apollolake > systems we checked, we found that cpu can take > > up to 300ms sending CMD1s to HW, so we can avoid this delay by > parallelizing. > > > > - Why not add this parallelization in the payload instead? > > There is potentially more time to parallelize things in > coreboot. Payload execution is much faster, > > so we don't get much parallel execution time. > > > > - Why not send CMD1 once in coreboot to trigger power-up and let HW > initialize using only 1 cpu? > > Jedec spec requires the CPU to keep sending CMD1s when > the hardware is busy (section 6.4.3). We tested > > with real-world hardware and it indeed didn't work with > a single CMD1. > > > > - Why did you port the driver from depthcharge? > > I wanted to use a driver that is proven to avoid bugs. > It is also easier to apply patches back and forth. > > > > https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/18105 > > > > Thanks > > Bora > > > > >

9 13

Re: [coreboot] coreboot community meeting minutes for February 16, 2017
by Zoran Stojsavljevic 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

Expected answer. Zoran On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:36 PM, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:24 AM Zoran Stojsavljevic < > zoran.stojsavljevic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > what I've found on u-root and harvey is once we had slack, the mailing >> list dropped to almost zero. Key word being almost, we still >> > use the mailing list for archival announcements. >> >> http://www.forums.fedoraforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7 >> >> Why I always feel that you have outdated ideas? You tell me?! ;-) >> >> >> > I don't understand your point. >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] coreboot community meeting minutes for February 16, 2017
by ron minnich 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:24 AM Zoran Stojsavljevic < zoran.stojsavljevic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > what I've found on u-root and harvey is once we had slack, the mailing > list dropped to almost zero. Key word being almost, we still > > use the mailing list for archival announcements. > > http://www.forums.fedoraforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7 > > Why I always feel that you have outdated ideas? You tell me?! ;-) > > > I don't understand your point.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] coreboot community meeting minutes for February 16, 2017
by Zoran Stojsavljevic 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

> what I've found on u-root and harvey is once we had slack, the mailing list dropped to almost zero. Key word being almost, we still > use the mailing list for archival announcements. http://www.forums.fedoraforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7 Why I always feel that you have outdated ideas? You tell me?! ;-) Peace, Bro', Zoran On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:55 PM, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > what I've found on u-root and harvey is once we had slack, the mailing > list dropped to almost zero. Key word being almost, we still use the > mailing list for archival announcements. > > ron > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:34 AM Felix Held <felix-coreboot(a)felixheld.de> > wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> > * coreboot is evaluating the idea switching from the mailing list to a >> > forum package. A poll on this will be posted shortly. >> > - Switch to reddit? >> > - Switch to google groups? >> > - Look for a forum software package that integrates well with the >> > mailing list. >> > - Skepticism was expressed about ditching the mailing list. >> I think dropping the mailing list for some forum would be a really bad >> idea. The mailing list is organized as a tree and most forums only >> support linear threads which get confusing very easily. Some forum with >> tree-structure (the code or reddit is open source, but i'm not sure how >> difficult it would be deploying an own installation of that) would be ok >> from that point, but i still see some possible problems in regard to >> archiving stuff there, since most of the data formats there will >> probably ways less portable than a mailing list archive. >> >> Regards >> Felix >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >> > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] coreboot community meeting minutes for February 16, 2017
by tturne＠codeaurora.org 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

On 2017-02-17 09:55, ron minnich wrote: > what I've found on u-root and harvey is once we had slack, the mailing > list dropped to almost zero. Key word being almost, we still use the > mailing list for archival announcements. > > ron This is reminiscent of an upstart thread from maybe 5-6 years ago when I was at Motorola Mobility. Gist of the thread was a desire to re-license upstart from GPLv2 to GPLv3. The maintainer wanted to be able to respond directly to anybody who had an issue with GPLv3. I shared that while I had latitude regarding OSS licensed GPLv2, I had 0 latitude with regard to GPLv3. The point I made at that time is that Corporate America (fill in your favorite country) was "comfortable" with GPLv2. If upstart had been licensed GPLv3 I wouldn't have been on the mailing list or considering its use, regardless of pros/cons of GPLv2 vs GPLv3. So I put it to the group this way, what portion of the potential user-base for Coreboot will be put-off because there isn't a mailing list? If I'm not directly involved in a Coreboot project and I work for some nameless entity, I may have the freedom to monitor mailing lists but not forums. Corporations are funny entities, but they are all risk adverse. How much effort do you want to spend on convincing corporate entities that forums are better than mailing lists? I vote to stay with what is comfortable to both developers and silent watchers from the stands. Cheers, T.mike > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:34 AM Felix Held > <felix-coreboot(a)felixheld.de> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >>> * coreboot is evaluating the idea switching from the mailing list >> to a >>> forum package. A poll on this will be posted shortly. >>> - Switch to reddit? >>> - Switch to google groups? >>> - Look for a forum software package that integrates well with >> the >>> mailing list. >>> - Skepticism was expressed about ditching the mailing list. >> I think dropping the mailing list for some forum would be a really >> bad >> idea. The mailing list is organized as a tree and most forums only >> support linear threads which get confusing very easily. Some forum >> with >> tree-structure (the code or reddit is open source, but i'm not sure >> how >> difficult it would be deploying an own installation of that) would >> be ok >> from that point, but i still see some possible problems in regard to >> archiving stuff there, since most of the data formats there will >> probably ways less portable than a mailing list archive. >> >> Regards >> Felix >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

1 0

Suggestions on shipping ARMv8 Chromebook
by tturne＠codeaurora.org 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

Folks, As we work on our own implementation we are kicking around purchasing an off-the-shelf ARMv8 Chromebook. Main requirement is that it has a nice clean software build in the chrome/coreboot trees. Prefer no binary blobs, but that is merely a preference. Does the community have any suggestions? Cheers, T.mike

2 1

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
22
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot February 2017