-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi @ all,
is there a Coroboot for the Lenovo T410 Laptop?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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?
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.
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.
On 04/30/2017 08:05 AM, BogDan Vatra wrote:
> I'd like to build desktop/workstation for my personal use (lots of
> compilations + of course gaming on linux)
> I bought 2 x 6276 CPUs and a KGPE-D16, eprom programmer, etc. now I'm
> looking to buy some RAM.
> My goal is to have a quad channel 64Gb and because I looking for a
> desktop/workstation I think the best choice will be ECC UDIMMs and not
> Will coreboot support 8 x 8Gb DDR3 UDIMMs 1600Mhz? If yes, there are
> any recommended brands/product series?
> If not, then what is the best option for achieving my goal?
RDIMM's are generally cheaper as ECC UDIMM's are rare, and it doesn't
matter what brands or w/e you use AFAIK - I have never had problems with
mismatched ebay sticks.
If you want to play games on higher settings that can't utilize 16 cores
you will have to get a better CPU, like a 6328, 6386SE or 6287SE.
Something cool you can do with this too is play yours in a VM like me
with an attached graphics card.
I would do a 6328 and a 6386SE combo with the first used for games.
If you want 1600mhz you need 63xx CPU's I believe.
I'd like to build desktop/workstation for my personal use (lots of
compilations + of course gaming on linux)
I bought 2 x 6276 CPUs and a KGPE-D16, eprom programmer, etc. now I'm
looking to buy some RAM.
My goal is to have a quad channel 64Gb and because I looking for a
desktop/workstation I think the best choice will be ECC UDIMMs and not
Will coreboot support 8 x 8Gb DDR3 UDIMMs 1600Mhz? If yes, there are
any recommended brands/product series?
If not, then what is the best option for achieving my goal?
Very good presentation from Dmitry Sklyarov. Despite there are some
inaccuracies, the work done by his team on ME 11 is impressive. :-)
Here, I am just thinking loud...
Interesting... ME 11 has some new HW concepts, introduced by INTEL for SKL
onward. Knowing the EGO trips of the leading INTEL people, I would not be
surprised to see that ARC/SPARC is actually swapped with quark (shrinked
PENTIUM on 22nm), introduced as serious challenge to ARM in IOT space by
BK, CEO of INTEL, when BK was just a TMG leader (Y2013). Quark is his
beloved baby, crown of his technical career (leading him to be CEO).
Actually, quark is pushed into very serious designs all over the place,
from 3 years ago, fast forwarded in Time. So quark could be the
replacement. AS additional justification for BK's decisions, dated more
than 3 years ago.
Looking what MINIX3 itself is, it kinda confirms my thoughts:
*MINIX 3 is a free, open-source, operating system designed to be highly
reliable, flexible, and secure. It is based on a tiny microkernel running
in kernel mode with the rest of the operating system running as a number of
isolated, protected, processes in user mode.*
The another interesting fact I did not know is that ME is taking minimum 2x
of consecutive 16MB of DRAM (this I new already), but that this DRAM is not
accessible by OS, running on CPU. Thus, Since I know that these 32MB of
memory are very close to TOM (on the first 4GB of memory), and reserved by
the time HECI I/F starts synchronising BIOS and ME engines, by 99.999%
users while BIOS executes, but for more Coreboot knowledgeable people right
after MRC algorithm is done/executed), it forces me to think that there is
another INTEL HW extension, hidden, which assures that this memory is NOT
accessible. Or, perhaps, one of variable MTRR definitions is used for this
purpose (procedure embedded in BIOS). I need to investigate more on this
MINIX3 on the top of quark is viable design. Especially that there is
superuser mode, there are discovered UNIX FS definitions (user/group/world
permissions on extensions), and modular packages (all modern Linux distros
have this concept). And... Notion of ring0 and ring3, introducing
additional layer of ME protection (not available by RTOS ThreadX, my best
Very interesting presentation, indeed. But I need to watch it several
times, to let additional ideas to pop in my mind... ;-)
Thank you (Dmitry especially),
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Patrick Georgi via coreboot <
> Fun tidbit: The ME is running MINIX3 (confirmed by a file in the
> Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
> 2017-04-26 22:47 GMT+02:00 Youness Alaoui <kakaroto(a)kakaroto.homelinux.net
> > Thanks for the links.
> > This is the article that I had seen :
> > http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2017/04/intel-me-way-of-static-analysis.html
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Shawn <citypw(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> slide:
> >> https://www.troopers.de/downloads/troopers17/TR17_ME11_Static.pdf
> >> video:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_aokrfcoUk
> >> --
> >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org
> >> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
> > --
> > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org
> > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
> Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg
> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft:
> Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org
On 03/04/2017, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote:
> On 03/04/2017, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could we, please, agree on what the question is; write the question; and
>> ask a lawyer, preferably someone involved in the CC license creation in
>> the first place? All this interpretation of legalese by coders is bound to
>> end badly.
Having re-read the emails from Nico Huber and from David Hendricks in
this thread, and having also re-read the relevant parts of the FAQ, I
now agree with Nico and David about how to interpret CC BY.
Even so, I remain in favour of CC BY-SA 3.0 over CC BY, in order to
achieve license compatibility with Wikipedia, Stack Exchange, OpenZFS,
and various other wikis and technical documentation projects that
might want to include content from the coreboot wiki or vice versa.
> Here is the email I sent to Creative Commons. It is imperfect, but I
> hope will be good enough. [...]
Mari from Creative Commons replied to me, offering to check with the
Creative Commons legal team whether CC BY 3.0 gives an adapter
permission to apply a different license to the work as a whole (as I
formerly thought) rather than just to the adapter's contribution (as
David and Nico believe).
Because there now seems to be unanimity within the mailing list on how
to interpret CC BY, getting a lawyer's opinion may be superfluous.
However, I would be happy to accept Mari's offer if you or other core
coreboot contributors would like me to.
Do you have access to, or read, the relevant datasheet(s)?
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/322896.pdf for example
appiies to NM10 and describes the bits involved on section 13.7.5
2017-04-28 12:46 GMT+02:00 <Sibi.Rajasekaran(a)dell.com>:
> Is there a way to do warm reset in Rangeley based systems in Coreboot?
> I tried writing 0x6 to the 0xcf9 interface, but it was a cold reset rather
> than a warm reset.
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org