Lenovo T410 Coreboot
by A. Veek
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi @ all,
is there a Coroboot for the Lenovo T410 Laptop?
Greetings
Alex Veek
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iF4EAREIAAYFAlNxKzsACgkQ53cWmi2XuzOOXAD8CNLPoycJNftQzeHnMQbl8ZG9
4y2SPIHwLota1/Gsfm0BAJzhG2M+MKXDBJgazHjt/HM2DyAeHi6S24sGcwd1W2GN
=sFKM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7 months, 1 week
Re: [coreboot] How to improve the boot time of the Asus KGPE-D16?
by Daniel Kulesz
Hi,
I wanted to try caching of the MRC training data. As described in Timothy's post, I commented the following line:
> allow_config_restore = 0;
However, I was not able to measure any effects regarding boot time. Does this setting only work with cbfs enabled? And if so, is it necessary to set additionally any cbfs variables?
Cheers, Daniel
P.S.
Hope this time I've set the Reply-To header correctly.
> On 03/02/2017 02:17 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > Dear Arthur, dear Timothy,
> >
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, den 02.03.2017, 13:38 -0600 schrieb Timothy Pearson:
> >> On 03/02/2017 01:30 PM, Arthur Heymans wrote:
> >>> Paul Menzel writes:
> >>>
> >>>> I think most of the time is spent in RAM initialization.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Do board owners with similar amount of memory (independent of the
> >>>> board) have similar numbers?
> >>>> 2. What are the ways to improve that? Is it possible? For example, can
> >>>> the modules be probed in parallel (if that isn?t done already)?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not the right person to answer this since I don't know this
> >>> code/hardware that well, but on modern Intel hardware native code uses
> >>> the MRC cache to store dram training results and restore those on
> >>> next boots (and resume from suspend) if no change in dimm configuration
> >>> was detected.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe something like this could also be applied here (or maybe it's already
> >>> the case since it includes code to access spi flash)?
> >>
> >> Yes, this is already implemented as an option, and it does a fairly
> >> decent job of reducing training overhead to almost nothing,
> >
> > Interesting. What option is that?
> >
> > Also, besides the file `s3nv` I don?t see anything else in CBFS. Where
> > is the training data cached?
>
> That's it. The cache is mandatory for S3 resume, and optional at boot.
>
> That being said, the pathways are present but are deactivated due to
> historical instability and are not tied in to an nvram variable at this
> time. If you want to test, you'll need to edit the source file
> "src/northbridge/amd/amdmct/mct_ddr3/mct_d.c"; near line 2730 you'll see
> a FIXME comment and this line:
>
> allow_config_restore = 0;
>
> Comment that line out and recompile to test. I strongly suggest running
> memtest across multiple warm and cold boots (and reboots) before
> determining the functionality is stable enough for use.
1 year, 11 months
Where to buy the KCMA-D8? *brand new*
by Taiidan＠gmx.com
Does anyone know? I have checked everywhere
I can't find the accessories for the board family either (TPM etc)
I would just get another KGPE-D16 but I want to make a router with one
of the 35W C32 "EE" opterons and the retail price is a little cheaper.
And does anyone know how much longer they are making the KGPE-D16? I
wanna buy more before they stop (I could get arm or power, but I still
need x86 to play video games) I suppose it is possible to port to
another better available similar board like something from supermicro
(H8DGI-way, way better specs, first released 2014) but I have no idea
how complex that is.
2 years, 1 month
Re: [coreboot] KGPE-D16 BMC Port Offer (was: Fund a TALOS Secure Workstation as coreboot build system)
by Timothy Pearson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/19/2017 11:36 AM, Martin Roth wrote:
> Hey Merlin,
> I was taking and keeping track of the pledges for Talos, so I'd be
> happy to continue.
>
> Martin
I just wanted to bring this back up for discussion. Raptor is chipping
in funding for over half of the development work, and Martin is matching
pledges, so if there's interest in this port your contributions will go
a long way, but it still depends on community interest. Are you willing
to contribute to this development project? It is a limited time offer,
so the quicker we can reach the relatively low goal to get this work
underway the better. :-)
Thanks!
- --
Timothy Pearson
Raptor Engineering
+1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line)
+1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard)
https://www.raptorengineering.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYijUnAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbQKAIAKPqeHZylATs3aZXC2QeTmUG
p0bnwfU4G+0qkXEwApoYk+y8WRKEkhBsug5EvzEXw65fAAmwi4COVjUBvm2l9kUI
m3/51sfrZRpo+H8c1lXld0WiwomTGapm9FX3rqAjLZn354TOqnrfoGYoJQC+ovKm
0AYXCGN8fmWkr6nTj9Q1tWwxEXrRv48YudF8bDFZhbMjOswnagNzImQNTC6wLgnY
+7UyqBgpihc8vh3GoGuPQT1mNpAtUwv1PS8HFGnDO86zW9gWB7+xHEGBhMyy+Rys
CTNWkI15X4dy8pz6XIsqjuBNSUcgTnVVAelecdm1BfykpgSyPyOf/39JQc/O41M=
=HzeR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2 years, 3 months
KGPE-D16: Most severe hang failure sorted out + boot time measures
by Daniel Kulesz
Hi folks,
as reported, the KGPE-D16 was mostly unusable for me in my 2x Opteron 6276 + 128 GB RAM configuration as it simply did not boot reliably - even with serial console debugging disabled completely. After experimenting with various config options and comparing my best "known half-working" config from earlier attempts, I finally found out that the hangs were related to the configuration and not to a specific coreboot version.
I attached the configs showing my current "reliable" setup (that survived 10 cold and 10 warm reboots without a single hangup!) and one of the previous "unreliable" setups which often needed several cold boots to successfully boot up once. There are several options which might be reposible for these hangs. Personally, I believe what helps is to completely disable the serial console and not just disable debugging to serial console.
As asked for previously, I also took some boot time measures from pressing the power button to "grub beep" in my 128 GB RAM configuration. Here they are:
vendor bios, unoptimized with iPXE setup: 59s
coreboot, current with the "reliable" config: 73s
coreboot, Jan 17 2017, with the "reliable" config: 91s
coreboot, current with the "unreliable" config: 131s
I assume that further investigation of the root cause could help to locate the real bug (like e.g. the setup of the serial console). Yet, I hope that having a "working-good" config will be useful for people suffering from the same issue as I did. For me, this setup is still far from being what I expected (memory is clocked too low and idle power consumption is 170W instead of 90W), but at least the machine boots up reliably every time now.
Cheers, Daniel
2 years, 3 months
Overheating on f2a85-m
by Piotr Kubaj
I've installed Coreboot on ASUS F2A85-M. Everything works fine, but the CPU overheats when doing something intensive (like video playing) and the OS crashes. Browsing the internet and watching movies doesn't make it sweat. I use FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE and Gentoo Linux.
My CPU is X4 750k. I lowered the RAM voltage to 1.35V but it doesn't really help. Enabling power saving features also doesn't make a difference. Everything works fine on vendor UEFI, so this issue is specific to Coreboot. Any idea what I can do?
--
________________________________________
/ A domineering man married a mere wisp \
| of a girl. He came back from his |
| honeymoon a chastened man. He'd become |
\ aware of the will of the wisp. /
----------------------------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
2 years, 3 months
Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?
by Nico Huber
On 31.03.2017 23:38, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 31/03/2017, David Hendricks <david.hendricks(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote:
>>> Also, to further address Patrick's point above about marketing
>>> material: it is important that the provenance of information about
>>> Coreboot can be established. This is a reputational matter. That means
>>> it is important that people should not legally be able to misrepresent
>>> Coreboot contributors' views, etc,
>>
>> Both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA have "no endorsement" clauses
>
> Yes, but because CC BY imposes no restrictions on *second*-derivative
> works,
Please find a quote for that. I'm not convinced. Relicensing adapted
work under different conditions would require the explicit permission
by the copyright holder. And I can't find that permission in CC BY.
Nico
2 years, 3 months
Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?
by Sam Kuper
On 31/03/2017, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote:
> Mallory, a malfeasor, spots Bob's newsletter in a cafe. She smells
> opportunity. She creates a derivative of Bob's piece, comprising "Quul
> Bal Bal Fol." Mallory publishes this under her own name, claiming
> authorship (as she is entitled to do, under CC-0).
That is, under Bob's CC-0 license. Also, Mallory *does not* mention or
credit Alice or Bob in any way. And finally, to be clear, Mallory
*does not* publish "Quul Bal Bal Fol" under a Free Culture license.
2 years, 3 months
Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?
by Sam Kuper
On 31/03/2017, David Hendricks <david.hendricks(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote:
>> Also, to further address Patrick's point above about marketing
>> material: it is important that the provenance of information about
>> Coreboot can be established. This is a reputational matter. That means
>> it is important that people should not legally be able to misrepresent
>> Coreboot contributors' views, etc,
>
> Both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA have "no endorsement" clauses
Yes, but because CC BY imposes no restrictions on *second*-derivative
works, it is powerless to prevent such works from claiming endorsement
(or, indeed, to prevent them from claiming whatever they please).[2]
> and the source
> of derived materials will still be easily traced back to coreboot.org
> (or archive.org or wherever).
Not necessarily, and especially not if no attributions are included
(which, again, could well be the case with second-derivative works if
the wiki used CC BY licensing instead of CC BY-SA).
>> or claim Coreboot contributors'
>> work as their own.
>
> Both BY and BY-SA licenses require attribution.
Yes, but again, because first derivatives of CC BY works are not
required to share alike, second-derivatives of CC BY works are not
necessarily required to provide attribution.
>> [1] How so? Because a licensee who creates a derivative work of a CC
>> BY-licensed work can license that derivative under terms (e.g. CC-0)
>> that would allow *their* licensees do potentially misattribute or
>> otherwise create reputational risk without fear of breaching licensing
>> terms.
>
> Section 3.A.4 of the BY license covers that: "If You Share Adapted
> Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent
> recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public
> License."
>
> So distributing a derived work with a different license does not
> nullify the original terms.
I believe you have misinterpreted that clause. Specifically, you have,
I think, mistakenly interpreted "must not prevent recipients of the
Adapted Material from complying" as meaning "must require recipients
of the Adapted Material to comply".
Regards.
[2] For purely illustrative purposes, suppose the original work
comprised "Foo Bar Baz Quux." (That is obviously too short and
unoriginal to be copyrightable, but this is just an illustration, so
replace it, in your imagination, with a substantial and convincing
copyrightable work.) Suppose it is copyright Alice, and Alice
publishes it under CC BY 3.0 on an obscure, low-traffic wiki, hoping
to capture the public's imagination and gain support for her cause.
Suppose Bob, in good faith, creates a legitimate derivative work
comprising "Fol Bal Bal Quul." Bob publishes this in an obscure,
offline newsletter, under a CC-0 license, noting in a footer that it
is an adaptation of Alice's CC BY 3.0 work, and providing the URL to
the original. He sends a copy to Alice.
Mallory, a malfeasor, spots Bob's newsletter in a cafe. She smells
opportunity. She creates a derivative of Bob's piece, comprising "Quul
Bal Bal Fol." Mallory publishes this under her own name, claiming
authorship (as she is entitled to do, under CC-0). It is extremely
successful, and Mallory is widely given credit, even though in truth
Mallory could never have come up with it by herself. This is extremely
hurtful to Alice, because she finds the message "Quul Bal Bal Fol"
extremely distasteful, and it means nothing like "Foo Bar Baz Quux",
even though she can see that it was ultimately based upon her original
work. Unfortunately, it is too late: Mallory has captured the public's
imagination. Almost everyone who might originally have been interested
in Alice's message are instead distracted by Mallory's vision. Whole
businesses put their weight behind "Quul Bal Bal Fol", even though it
is deeply inferior to "Foo Bar Baz Quux", because they never heard
about "Foo Bar Baz Quux". Mallory earns a fortune from "Quul Bal Bal
Fol". People searching the web for "Quul Bal Bal Fol" never find "Foo
Bar Baz Quux" in their search results, because it is just different
enough to rank poorly compared to all the publicity received by "Quul
Bal Bal Fol". And because Mallory's work was legitimately derived from
Bob's CC-0 work, Alice cannot readily sue Mallory for a breach of
license, and has, essentially, no sure recourse whatsoever.
(Replace "Alice" with "Coreboot" in the above, and you can, I hope,
see why I dislike the idea of Coreboot adopting a CC BY license.)
2 years, 3 months
