coreboot February 2017

coreboot@coreboot.org

66 participants
212 discussions

Re: [coreboot] The fastest possible intel free-as-in-freedom pattform not supported now?
by Taiidan＠gmx.com 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Why wouldn't you just use an interlagos g34/c32 opteron (no me or psp) which is way faster than that first gen intel core you mention, and there are already coreboot boards that have native init. I can't understand the obsession with intel that everyone has.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Dont filter supported CPUs on a mainboard by the CPUID
by ron minnich 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

For those of us working on boards that don't ship in a product, the die() is probably not appropriate. But if you intend to ship a real product then you definitely want to die() if someone tries to use a CPU that's not tested on the board. Or at least that's the way it seems to me. On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:42 AM Aaron Durbin via coreboot < coreboot(a)coreboot.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:04 AM, <i1w5d7gf38keg(a)tutanota.com> wrote: > > Yes, this die() is what i mean. Try to get maybe some functionality is i > > think better then just stopping there and providing zero functionality. > > > > I also know, that there is a message when the CPUID is not known. Its > about > > the die() afterwards. > > Patches always welcome. Did you try removing the die() and seeing if > things actually booted? > > > > > > > 23. Feb 2017 14:31 by coreboot(a)coreboot.org: > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > > > On 23.02.2017 00:07, i1w5d7gf38keg(a)tutanota.com wrote: > > > > There is a Filter to stop booting when the CPUID is not in a list of > > supported CPUs. This filter does not make sense in the real world usage. > > > > > > It's not a filter. It's a measure to know which code to run for which > > CPU. Please dig a little deeper before making such useless complaints. > > > > > > To add to Nico's point: the cpuid list is a way to bind code code to > > run for certain devices -- including CPUs. If the cpuid is not listed > > then the match on device->code to run is not met. Therefore, the code > > necessary to make that CPU work won't ever be ran. src/arch/x86/cpu.c > > has the cpu driver binding. And there already is message printed. See > > the callers of set_cpu_ops() in that file. The issue is that we die() > > when no match is found. We could attempt to boot further, but there's > > no guarantee it'd actually succeed. > > > > > > Nico > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Dont filter supported CPUs on a mainboard by the CPUID
by i1w5d7gf38keg＠tutanota.com 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Yes, this die() is what i mean. Try to get maybe some functionality is i think better then just stopping there and providing zero functionality. I also know, that there is a message when the CPUID is not known. Its about the die() afterwards. 23. Feb 2017 14:31 by coreboot(a)coreboot.org: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Nico Huber <> nico.h(a)gmx.de> > wrote: >> On 23.02.2017 00:07, >> i1w5d7gf38keg(a)tutanota.com>> wrote: >> >>> There is a Filter to stop booting when the CPUID is not in a list of >>> supported CPUs. This filter does not make sense in the real world usage. >> >> It's not a filter. It's a measure to know which code to run for which >> CPU. Please dig a little deeper before making such useless complaints. > > To add to Nico's point: the cpuid list is a way to bind code code to > run for certain devices -- including CPUs. If the cpuid is not listed > then the match on device->code to run is not met. Therefore, the code > necessary to make that CPU work won't ever be ran. src/arch/x86/cpu.c > has the cpu driver binding. And there already is message printed. See > the callers of set_cpu_ops() in that file. The issue is that we die() > when no match is found. We could attempt to boot further, but there's > no guarantee it'd actually succeed. > >> >> Nico >> >> -- >> 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

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Lenovo T420 Question
by i1w5d7gf38keg＠tutanota.com 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

The temperature difference get bigger when the temperature rise. I recommend the Thermal Grizzly "Kryonaut" over the GC-extreme. The price didnt matter that much in such cases. I for myself use 5g in about 5 years. "I" think Thermal Grizzly "Kryonaut" is better. If i get 5 oder 10g for 15euro - does not really matter. It would be nice now to see if our information could help drop the temperature on a quadcore usage inside of the T420. 24. Feb 2017 11:12 by qmastery16(a)gmail.com: > Hi, i took my results from this page (could use google translate) - > https://www.overclockers.ru/lab/79286_4/testirovanie-termointerfejsov-v-poi… > From your 1st test, Grizzly is better by 0.33 C , and from your 2nd test - by 0.31 C. Even if your tests are more correct, 10g of GC-Extreme at my local market cost the same as 5,55g of Grizzly -- that means, Grizzly is almost twice more expensive per 1g ; that is too big price difference for just 0.3 C . BTW it took me just 1 year to spend the first 10g, so had to buy another 10g.... > 2017-02-24 13:53 GMT+03:00 <> i1w5d7gf38keg(a)tutanota.com> >: > >> >> This test here show the opposite: >> http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/831791d1434218266-review-ther… >> >> The Gelid GC-Extreme is not as good as Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut also listed by this test here: >> http://overclocking.guide/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Tim_test_update1.png >> >> and also some other tests i had read. >> >> I dont know where you got this test you paste the results. I have never seen a test result where the GC-extreme was better then the Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut before. >> >> 5,55gramm of the Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut cost about 15€. I dont think that you should go there for the best price. You apply it once and 5,55g is really much for a normal user. You would probably have enough for years. >> >> 23. Feb 2017 16:36 by >> qmastery16(a)gmail.com>> : >> >> >>> Actually there is an even better non-conductive thermal paste (not liquid metal) than "Grizzly" --- it is called " Gelid GC-Extreme ". Here is a comparison from one review website that I screenshotted - >>> https://s4.postimg.org/qvp326pjx/Thermal_Grease.png>>> . The difference between them is not big, but I think in your case every degree counts. Also, there is a packaging of Gelid GC-Extreme that is 10g - >>> http://gelidsolutions.com/thermal-solutions/thermal-compound-gc-extreme-10g/>>> , this larger packaging gives a very affordable price per 1g and will last for a long time ;) >>> >>> 2017-02-23 4:49 GMT+03:00 <>>> i1w5d7gf38keg(a)tutanota.com>>> >: >>> >>>> >>>> Could you try out "Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut" or even liquid metal based products and report about the temperatures? It would be great if you could try out first the Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut and later then for example the Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut and report here. >>>> http://www.overclock.net/t/1588116/thermal-grizzly-conductonaut-73-w-mk >>>> >>>> Please clean up the surface before applying when possible with >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopropyl_alcohol>>>> (its cheap and easy to get). >>>> >>>> 23. Feb 2017 01:28 by >>>> coreboot(a)semioptimal.net>>>> : >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> Untested/unknown: If a ivy bridge CPU would work. The OEM bios didn't had support for those. >>>>> >>>>> Ivy Bridge works, have a 3740QM in mine. However, (quoting myself here): >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm running one albeit with an i7-3740qm - which is too much thermal load, runs up to 2.9 GHz for me reaching 93°C (70K to ambient) with fan set to disengaged, normal auto fan control works and allows up to 2.5 GHz. >>>>>> >>>>>> with that CPU RAPL does not work, thermald does but out-of-the-box settings gives me less performance than with fix limits, and I'm sure as hell not going to configure something with an xml config file. >>>>>> >>>>>> used to have a 2720m which worked without any issues AFAIR, but the 3740qm effectively gives me double the cores that are a little faster. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Arian >>>> >>>> -- >>>> coreboot mailing list: >>>> coreboot(a)coreboot.org >>>> https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >>>> >>> >>> >> > >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Lenovo T420 Question
by i1w5d7gf38keg＠tutanota.com 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

This test here show the opposite: http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/831791d1434218266-review-ther… The Gelid GC-Extreme is not as good as Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut also listed by this test here: http://overclocking.guide/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Tim_test_update1.png and also some other tests i had read. I dont know where you got this test you paste the results. I have never seen a test result where the GC-extreme was better then the Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut before. 5,55gramm of the Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut cost about 15€. I dont think that you should go there for the best price. You apply it once and 5,55g is really much for a normal user. You would probably have enough for years. 23. Feb 2017 16:36 by qmastery16(a)gmail.com: > Actually there is an even better non-conductive thermal paste (not liquid metal) than "Grizzly" --- it is called " Gelid GC-Extreme ". Here is a comparison from one review website that I screenshotted - > https://s4.postimg.org/qvp326pjx/Thermal_Grease.png> . The difference between them is not big, but I think in your case every degree counts. Also, there is a packaging of Gelid GC-Extreme that is 10g - > http://gelidsolutions.com/thermal-solutions/thermal-compound-gc-extreme-10g/> , this larger packaging gives a very affordable price per 1g and will last for a long time ;) > > 2017-02-23 4:49 GMT+03:00 <> i1w5d7gf38keg(a)tutanota.com> >: > >> >> Could you try out "Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut" or even liquid metal based products and report about the temperatures? It would be great if you could try out first the Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut and later then for example the Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut and report here. >> http://www.overclock.net/t/1588116/thermal-grizzly-conductonaut-73-w-mk >> >> Please clean up the surface before applying when possible with >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopropyl_alcohol>> (its cheap and easy to get). >> >> 23. Feb 2017 01:28 by >> coreboot(a)semioptimal.net>> : >> >> >>> Hi >>>> >>>> Untested/unknown: If a ivy bridge CPU would work. The OEM bios didn't had support for those. >>> >>> Ivy Bridge works, have a 3740QM in mine. However, (quoting myself here): >>>> >>>> I'm running one albeit with an i7-3740qm - which is too much thermal load, runs up to 2.9 GHz for me reaching 93°C (70K to ambient) with fan set to disengaged, normal auto fan control works and allows up to 2.5 GHz. >>>> >>>> with that CPU RAPL does not work, thermald does but out-of-the-box settings gives me less performance than with fix limits, and I'm sure as hell not going to configure something with an xml config file. >>>> >>>> used to have a 2720m which worked without any issues AFAIR, but the 3740qm effectively gives me double the cores that are a little faster. >>> >>> Regards, Arian >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: >> coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >> > >

2 1

Re: [coreboot] QA: Properly relay results of `checkpatch.pl` check
by Paul Menzel 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Dear Martin, Am Donnerstag, den 23.02.2017, 16:47 -0700 schrieb Martin Roth: > checkpatch is currently not a gating item in jenkins and should always > pass right now. The checkpatch build was added to jenkins to allow people > to see at the results of the console output for the patch without having to > download and run checkpatch themselves. > > Unfortunately, checkpatch is a lot stricter than we want to be. It would > require someone who fixes a misspelling on a line to also fix any other > mistakes on that line. Because of this, we don't want to fail the patch > based on checkpatch errors styleguide issues. We had discussed adding a > non-failing 'lint' flag to gerrit to notify people that checkpatch was > failing so that they could go look at it, but due to people's workloads, > this hasn't happened yet. Honestly, it's probably fallen off the radar. The non-failing option, would indeed be a good compromise. I believe, that right now the *SUCCESS* message is confusing, letting most people think, that there are *no* problems. Could the message be adapted, or is that a Gerrit/Jenkins limitation? > Personally, I still think it's a bad idea to refuse patches that don't pass > checkpatch, but I'd be glad to discuss it. The other option would be, to make it a “gating item”, and see how many of the unwanted situations occur. If it’s only a few, then the change- set owner, could just add a comment, that it’s a such a situation (“false positive”), and the Gerrit administrators could override the result. It’d be interesting, if that will be less work in the end, as less reviewer time is spent on commenting the formal issues. > Also, the error you mentioned WAS noticed, and fixed in a follow-on patch > so that it could be pulled back into the chromium tree. Yes, I know. I am sorry for not making that more clear in my message. Thanks, Paul

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Improving KBC1126 support for HP laptops
by Peter Stuge 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Iru Cai wrote: > I have searched and downloaded two SMSC confidential document: a KBC1122 > preliminary datasheet and a KBC1122 BIOS porting guide. Is there any > problem if I use them to write some code? Obviously they are copyrighted works, so you can't contribute any code which you may have copied from them. //Peter

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot on Thinkpad "X62" (i7-5600u)?
by Peter Stuge 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Rafael Send wrote: > an old Thinkpad X61 with a custom motherboard in it. Who made the new mainboard? You should ideally get their cooperation for your project. //Peter

1 0

QA: Properly relay results of `checkpatch.pl` check
by Paul Menzel 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Dear coreboot folks, Each commit pushed to Gerrit is automatically tested for “formal” issues by using `checkpatch.pl`. See for example [1]. Though despite missing a space violating our coding style, which is also found by `checkpatch.pl` [2], the comment contains, that no errors is found. > https://qa.coreboot.org/job/coreboot-checkpatch/5142/ : SUCCESS ``` ERROR: space required before the open brace '{' #49: FILE: src/mainboard/google/gru/pwm_regulator.c:61: + } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BOARD_GOOGLE_KEVIN) && board_id() >= 6){ total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 49 lines checked ``` Is there a reason for not relaying these errors? If not, it’d be great to do so (and for the Chromium and Intel folks to also do that in their repository). Thanks, Paul [1] https://review.coreboot.org/18460 [2] https://qa.coreboot.org/job/coreboot-checkpatch/5142/console

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot on Thinkpad "X62" (i7-5600u)?
by Rafael Send 23 Feb '17

23 Feb '17

"MEI device not found". I take it that's good news? Rafael On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Iru Cai <mytbk920423(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Rafael Send <rsend(a)berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> Hello there- >> I'm assuming this is the right way to ask a general question, but please >> let me know if it isn't. >> >> I have an "X62" laptop, which is actually an old Thinkpad X61 with a >> custom motherboard in it. >> This board has an i7-5600u CPU on it, and I was wondering if it was >> possible to build a version of coreboot for this machine. >> I see an existing mailing list entry in the archive discussing a >> Chromebook Pixel with the same CPU, so I'm thinking it may be possible >> unless I'm missing something major. >> Since this is a custom motherboard, how would I find out about the Intel >> Boot Guard and related issues so that I can provide the details for the >> good folks here? >> > > You can try https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/16328/, or modify some > instructions in the firmware to see if it still boots. > > If boot guard is not enabled, I think booting with coreboot is not so > hard, but it may be hard to make the EC interface work fine. > > Iru > > I'm pretty comfortable around Linux but probably would have trouble >> building this from scratch. >> Thanks in advance! >> >> Rafael >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >> > > > > -- > Please do not send me Microsoft Office/Apple iWork documents. Send > OpenDocument instead! http://fsf.org/campaigns/opendocument/ >

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
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