October 2018 - coreboot - mail.coreboot.org

Re: [coreboot] Contribution to coreboot board status
by Sven Dreyer Oct. 24, 2018

Oct. 24, 2018

Hi Patrick, hi list, Am 23.10.18 um 14:29 schrieb Patrick Georgi: > After you're logged in with Gerrit, you can get git-compatible > credentials at https://review.coreboot.org/settings/#HTTPCredentials > that you can then store in $HOME/.netrc for git to pick up. Thanks for the hint. I have no experience with gerrit, so this wasn't self-explanatory to me. With the http credentials, I was able to submit my results. At least I think so, because I had to enter the credentials and didn't see any error message when I tried it yesterday. But https://coreboot.org/status/board-status.html still shows a date from january for the alix2d platform. Repeating the process today because I thought I did something wrong results in "Result is a duplicate, aborting", which makes me think yesterday's commit was successful: $ util/board_status/board_status.sh -r 192.168.100.22 -u Extracting config.txt from build/coreboot.rom Extracting payload_config from build/coreboot.rom Temporarily placing output in /tmp/coreboot_board_status.z2kpCZw9/pcengines/alix2d/4.8-1857-g076ce2f4d9/2018-10-19T09_25_23Z Verifying that CBMEM is available on remote device Getting coreboot boot log Getting timestamp data Failed to run "cbmem -t", ignoring Getting remote dmesg Cloning into 'board-status'... remote: Counting objects: 65707, done remote: Finding sources: 100% (28/28) remote: Total 105407 (delta 3), reused 105404 (delta 3) Receiving objects: 100% (105407/105407), 214.71 MiB | 652.00 KiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (27205/27205), done. Checking out files: 100% (70725/70725), done. Checking for duplicate results Already up-to-date. Result is a duplicate, aborting One more thing: My board is an Alix 2C, which is pretty similar to the Alix 2D. It is reported as "alix2d", so the table at https://coreboot.org/status/board-status.html will always show "unknown" as status for the alix2c, which might be confusing. Thanks and best regards, Sven

1 0

Re: [coreboot] T520 vs. T530
by Nico Huber Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

On 10/23/18 11:18 PM, Michał Kopeć wrote: >> Not quite so. On T520 the flash chip is accessible right after you >> remove the keyboard and the palmrest and there's no need to remove the >> motherboard from chassis. > Sorry, my bad. I mixed up my facts there. > >> Although it's possible to use just the 8M chip by using modified layout, it might >> be confusing for a beginner. > I managed to flash my T430's both flash chips by splitting the 12M > coreboot image into two parts (4M + 8M) and flashing the chips > separately, is this not a good option? It depends heavily on what you want to accomplish. For instance if you just want to install coreboot (no ME tampering) and can live with up to 7MiB for CBFS, you don't have to touch the 8MiB ever externally. Nico

1 0

Re: [coreboot] T520 vs. T530
by Evgeny Zinoviev Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

On 10/24/2018 12:18 AM, Michał Kopeć wrote: >> Although it's possible to use just the 8M chip by using modified layout, it might >> be confusing for a beginner. > I managed to flash my T430's both flash chips by splitting the 12M > coreboot image into two parts (4M + 8M) and flashing the chips > separately, is this not a good option? > This way I don't have to pass a layout file to flashrom, it just > writes to both chips. It also allows me to have a larger CBFS. See, already confusing ;) On T530/W530 you can access the 8M chip right after you remove the keyboard and palmrest, but the 4M chip stays under the frame. And if you don't want to waste your time by disassembling the laptop completely and then assembling it back, you can use only the 8M chip and never even touch the 4M one, but in order to do that, you have to modify the layout.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] T520 vs. T530
by Michał Kopeć Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

>Not quite so. On T520 the flash chip is accessible right after you >remove the keyboard and the palmrest and there's no need to remove the >motherboard from chassis. Sorry, my bad. I mixed up my facts there. >Although it's possible to use just the 8M chip by using modified layout, it might >be confusing for a beginner. I managed to flash my T430's both flash chips by splitting the 12M coreboot image into two parts (4M + 8M) and flashing the chips separately, is this not a good option? This way I don't have to pass a layout file to flashrom, it just writes to both chips. It also allows me to have a larger CBFS.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] T520 vs. T530
by Evgeny Zinoviev Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

>> 3. With which model it is easier to install coreboot on it? > No practical difference, the building and flashing procedure is the same. Not quite so. On T520 the flash chip is accessible right after you remove the keyboard and the palmrest and there's no need to remove the motherboard from chassis. On T530 there are two flash chips and while the 8M one is easily accessible after you remove the palmrest, the 4M one is covered with the magnesium frame and you have to disassemble the laptop completely, and the 4M one is the one you need to flash. Although it's possible to use just the 8M chip by using modified layout, it might be confusing for a beginner. (I wrote a guide how to do that based on my W530 experience, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/coreboot/comments/956ymu/howto_flash_coreboot_on_x…)

1 0

Re: [coreboot] T520 vs. T530
by Nico Huber Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

On 10/23/18 7:59 PM, Michał Kopeć wrote: >> 1. I need CPU power. I read that it is possible to put a i7-3940XM in a >> T530. Because of coreboot it should also possible to put it in a T520? > Yes, with Coreboot you can put an Ivy Bridge CPU into a xx20 series > ThinkPads. It works sometimes. AFAIK, nobody has figured out yet which combinations work and which don't. Might depend on the processor stepping, the ME firmware version, DRAM clock etc. Though, with some patience you'd likely get it to work. >> 3. With which model it is easier to install coreboot on it? > No practical difference, the building and flashing procedure is the > same. Actually, there are many differences, IIRC. The T520 has a single flash chip. The T530 has two. And, AFAIK, the T530 lacks pull-ups on the flash chips' /CS signals. Which means you have to connect both chips' /CS pins appropriately to access any of them. >> 4. What are the general pros and cons of a T520/T530, especially with >> coreboot? > T530 will not accept non-Lenovo batteries unlesh you flash a patched > EC firmware, and that can only be done while you're still running > stock UEFI. T530 has USB 3.0, T520 has a keyboard that some consider > superior. Otherwise the machines are extremely similar. The initialization of the T530's USB 3.0 controller is incomplete. You could use a reference-code blob though (or use the blob's results to fill the gaps in the initialization routine). Nico

1 0

Re: [coreboot] T520 vs. T530
by Michał Kopeć Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

>1. I need CPU power. I read that it is possible to put a i7-3940XM in a T530. Because of coreboot it should also possible to put it in a T520? Yes, with Coreboot you can put an Ivy Bridge CPU into a xx20 series ThinkPads. >2. I would like to use an eGPU. Any differences between these two models? Not really, especially with coreboot. I'm glad to report that my RX 580 eGPU works well with my T430 running Coreboot - just make sure you enable ONBOARD_VGA_IS_PRIMARY in your config, otherwise your integrated graphics will be disabled and you'll lose eGPU hotplug. >3. With which model it is easier to install coreboot on it? No practical difference, the building and flashing procedure is the same. >4. What are the general pros and cons of a T520/T530, especially with coreboot? T530 will not accept non-Lenovo batteries unlesh you flash a patched EC firmware, and that can only be done while you're still running stock UEFI. T530 has USB 3.0, T520 has a keyboard that some consider superior. Otherwise the machines are extremely similar.

1 0

Contribution to coreboot board status
by Sven Dreyer Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

Hi list, I'd like to contribute the board status of my Alix 2C board, which runs great using coreboot. https://coreboot.org/status/board-status.html says that this is possible if you have an account at review.coreboot.org, but on that site, there is no "create account" button. Login with launchpad credentials works for the website, but when I run "./board_status.sh -u", remote git (of course) doesn't accept my launchpad credentials. Is there any possibility to get an account for that site? Alternatively, I could send a tarball with the files collected by board_status.sh Thanks and best regards, Sven

2 1

T520 vs. T530
by yc-153434＠hs-weingarten.de Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

Hello guys, I am planning to buy a used Lenovo Thinkpad and install coreboot on it. I am completely new to coreboot and I need help in the decision if I should buy a T520 or a T530. I read the wiki and some other pages but it's still hard for me to decide which model I should buy. 1. I need CPU power. I read that it is possible to put a i7-3940XM in a T530. Because of coreboot it should also possible to put it in a T520? 2. I would like to use an eGPU. Any differences between these two models? 3. With which model it is easier to install coreboot on it? 4. What are the general pros and cons of a T520/T530, especially with coreboot? Thanks for your help! Kind regards

2 1

Re: [coreboot] [AMD family16h] What need to be done in coreboot to support the Virtual Wire mode
by Marc Jones Oct. 22, 2018

Oct. 22, 2018

Does VxWorks use the ACPI tables for IRQ routing? You might need that. Marc On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:03 AM Zheng Bao <fishbaoz(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi, all, > I need to support VxWorks in Virtual Wire mode. The code is stable in > coreboot.org for a long time which supports > Windows and Linux. > I add code to set the Interrupt Line in PciConfiguration space. > What else needs to be done? > > Zheng > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- http://marcjonesconsulting.com

1 0