coreboot November 2018

coreboot@coreboot.org

71 participants
149 discussions

Re: [coreboot] Hardware needed for flashing a T530
by Nico Huber 26 Nov '18

26 Nov '18

On 25.11.18 23:40, Mike Banon wrote: >> If u have an Raspi or Beaglebone laying around , they are also suitable for flashing > Although there's a problem with > Raspi/Beaglebone/any-other-SBC(single.board.computer)-except-EOMA68 I > have to mention - they're running the non-free binary blobs, and > CH341A or Bus Pirate are better in this relation: CH341A - no firmware > at all Did you check that with an STM or how can you tell? Nico

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Hardware needed for flashing a T530
by Peter Stuge 26 Nov '18

26 Nov '18

Mike Banon wrote: > there's a problem with > Raspi/Beaglebone/any-other-SBC(single.board.computer)-except-EOMA68 I > have to mention - they're running the non-free binary blobs You can't possibly be equating Broadcom to TI in terms of openness? What's your experience with the actual products of those companies? Have you looked at spruh73? Put another way: What are your blob concerns (this is such a ridiculously simplified discussion) with AM335x? //Peter

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Hardware needed for flashing a T530
by Nico Huber 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

Hi Mike, On 25.11.18 23:40, Mike Banon wrote: > Hi Nico, please could you confirm that FT2232H (link to which you have > provided) could work as a debug dongle? At "menuconfig" I only see > USBDEBUG_DONGLE_FTDI_FT232H but not FT2232H , don't know how similar > they are to each other yes, it works. FT4232H should work too btw. The FT232H just implements a single port, the FT4232H four ports. But they should be compatible otherwise (at least I didn't see any distinction for them when looking at libftdi to write the debug support). Nico

1 0

Re: [coreboot] ?==?utf-8?q? Hardware needed for flashing a T530
by Yannik Catalinac 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

Thanks for your answers! Because I had an 10€ ebay coupon, I decided to buy a CH341A and a 10cm dupont female-female cable for just 0,74€ ;) Do you know how to check if the CH341A works correctly (like the correct voltage etc.)? Am So. 25. November 2018 23:40 CET, Mike Banon <mikebdp2(a)gmail.com> schrieb: Hi Nico, please could you confirm that FT2232H (link to which you have provided) could work as a debug dongle? At "menuconfig" I only see USBDEBUG_DONGLE_FTDI_FT232H but not FT2232H , don't know how similar they are to each other @kinky_nekoboi: > If u have an Raspi or Beaglebone laying around , they are also suitable for flashing Although there's a problem with Raspi/Beaglebone/any-other-SBC(single.board.computer)-except-EOMA68 I have to mention - they're running the non-free binary blobs, and CH341A or Bus Pirate are better in this relation: CH341A - no firmware at all, just a few config registers ; Bus Pirate - completely open source firmware On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 1:36 AM kinky_nekoboi <kinky_nekoboi(a)bluetardis.de> wrote: > > If u have an Raspi or Beaglebone laying around , they are also suitable for flashing > > Am 25. November 2018 22:55:56 MEZ schrieb Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>: >> >> Hi Yannik, >> >> On 25.11.18 20:05, Yannik Catalinac wrote: >>> >>> For the SPI programmer I decided to use a CH341A, but when I search for >>> it there are different CH341A. Which one should I buy? >> >> >> It shouldn't matter as long as it says to be compatible to SPI 25 >> series. There were reports about bad batches of every kind (e.g. >> wrong voltage regulator), FWIW. So there's always a risk. I would >> pick one with a location in Europe (i.e. not China) so you don't >> wait weeks and then realize you got a bad one. I have one with a >> black board btw. that works fine. >> >> As you asked for a German shop below, here[1] is a more expensive >> alternative to the CH341A. 5x the cost, up to 15x the speed (and >> can also work as a USB debugging device with coreboot; needs another >> TTL level UART for the other end, though). >> >>> >>> Which cables do you recommend? I read that I should use short ones, but >>> which cables exactly dou you recommend? A link to a german shop would be >>> very, very helpful! >> >> >> Reichelt has some rather expensive ones[2]. Work for me but I can't say >> if they are any better than random ones from eBay. For the latter search >> for `10cm dupont female-female` (Buchse-Buchse). >> >> Hope that helps, >> Nico >> >> [1] >> https://www.elv.de/elv-highspeed-mini-usb-modul-um-ft2232h-komplettbausatz.… >> Also needs a Mini-B (not the popular Micro-B) USB cable in case you >> don't have a spare one. >> [2] https://www.reichelt.de/ >> Search for: steckboard lbb > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

1 0

Hardware needed for flashing a T530
by Yannik Catalinac 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

Hello, which hardware do you guys recommend for flashing a Lenovo Thinpad T530? As far as I know you need three things: 1. SPI programmer with USB connection and USB cable 2. SOIC8 clip 3. cables to connect the SPI programmer and the SOIC8 clip I'm sure with number 2, so I already bought a Pomona 5250 clip. For the SPI programmer I decided to use a CH341A, but when I search for it there are different CH341A. Which one should I buy? Which cables do you recommend? I read that I should use short ones, but which cables exactly dou you recommend? A link to a german shop would be very, very helpful! Thanks for helping Greetings

4 3

Fwd: Supported Motherboards
by Matt B 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

I need to pick a better email client, or remember to say "reply all" ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Matt B <matthewwbradley6(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [coreboot] Supported Motherboards To: <Taiidan(a)gmx.com> I also don't see "drop it and if someone likes it they'll work to get it back to master" as being more than a band-aid solution. It doesn't do anything to raise the probability of bad code getting dealt with, but it does put the problem out of sight and out of mind. The reason people who use this laptop are so resistant is that they see it as a statement that the speaker doesn't care about fixing what's broken and would much rather it just disappear. (regardless of who happens to be using it) It's saying you want the other side just be quiet and go away, which isn't constructive. -Matt On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 2:43 PM Matt B <matthewwbradley6(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > It seems that whenever someone mentions the ME (or one of a number of > other topics) the G505s is inevitably recommended, and people subsequently > get into a debate over the relative badness of the ME vs atomBIOS/microcode > ect. [1] This also leads to people lamenting the G505s for it's shitty > AGESA codebase [2], and arguments over dropping boards like the G505s from > master. If the thread gets really nasty, it gets into arguments over > corporate influence of coreboot. > > But this cycle of arguments doesn't get us anywhere and the G505s code > continues to languish. It hasn't been abandoned *yet* but it doesn't become > any less likely that some new feature will lead to it getting dropped [3]. > > I think this is tragic, since it's a still reasonably powerful laptop, > probably took a lot of porting work, and has advantages over a lot of > alternatives. [4] The fundamental problem seems to me to be that there are > a hell of a lot of people who use G505s (seems very popular with people who > run qubes), there haven't been a lot of people with the skill or > inclination [5] to do the work required to put it on par with [insert > favorite thinkpad]. The task of doing the cleanup or rewrite (whatever is > required) may not be the most immediately attractive or productive task, > but it seems like something that would make everybody a lot happier and > eliminate a lot of arguing in the long run. > > Now, I may be a G505s owner, but I'm certainly not qualified to work on > it's code. Rather than argue that "some developer" > should, I'd like to propose something different. I think we should have a > proper, technical discussion of what we want the G505s port to look like, > what the best means to get there is (cleanup or rewrite, for example), and > based on who wants to volunteer and who would be willing to do it under > contract, figure out how much it would cost. Then we ask the people who own > G505s or who want to see it improved to pony up the money to make that > happen in a crowd-funding campaign, like any other open source software > project would. [6] > > Then maybe we can firmly put this laptop on the list of "great to use > with coreboot" without this massive asterisk beside it. > > Sincerely, > -Matt > > [1] It's interesting to note that there has been some recent movement on > improving the atomBIOS situation a little bit. While I have a hard time > imagining a future where all the drivers are patched to not need atomBIOSs, > I can imagine a future where we compile and use open source > re-implementations of existing atomBIOSs. > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Flashrom-AMD-SPI-Patches > [2] For an example, look no further that is the current workaround for > getting up-to-date microcode into these things, which I understand is borne > in part from buggyness in AGESA microcode loading code > [3] These rules are probably very reasonable, but I don't think there's > any way that people won't read them as malicious in contexts like these. > [4] To name a recent example, there are threads from this month that look > like discrete GPU support will come in the immediate future, along with > better support for variants with the A8 APU. > [5] Empirically, since this still hasn't been done. No offense to anyone > who's tried. > [6] Inspired by the recent talk about offering funding to paulk to work on > his open source EC firmware for the G505s. > >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] uefi_nvs.bin in coreboot
by galla rao 23 Nov '18

23 Nov '18

Hi Jose, with uefipayload (tianocore) does the setup variables get saved? Do we need any changes, I had older coreboot which comes from Intel and also 4.8.1 (Both these payloads) does not save setup variables change of boot order or secureboot->standara mode/custom mode, i tried some of them Do we need a change in CorebootPayloadPkg.fdf for pointing to correct NVStore Base Address, though gRT->SetVariable from the code works Regards Ranga On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:21 AM Jose Trujillo <ce.autom(a)protonmail.com> wrote: > Hello Ranga: > > From where you got this information / guide because I will try to do it > myself. > > Jose. > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 7:28 PM, galla rao <galla.rao80(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > am trying to save NVRAM variables which are modifed in Uefi Payload, but i > could not save it. > > what is the role of uefi_nvs.bin file? > > coreboot/intel/mainboard/intel/bayleybay_fsp/uefi_nvs.bin > > > > > Even the boot order does not save into NVRAM variables > > > Can some one help me on this, Base address is given below > > > gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdFlashNvStorageVariableBase | 0xFFF60000 > > gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdFlashNvStorageFtwWorkingBase | > 0xFFF7E000 > > > gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareBase | > 0xFFF80000 > > > In coreboot, i have given the same address > > > [image: image.png] > > Thanks & Regards > Ranga > > >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] coreboot & Absolute "Computrace"
by Peter Stuge 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

David Potocnik wrote: > Is it possible to remove/defuse this whole thing with a Coreboot flash? That depends on the.. > technical details about how the peculiar Absolute thing operates. ..which I don't know. Here are some conditions: If the Computrace thing is implemented exclusively in BIOS/UEFI then yes, it is replaced by flashing coreboot. But if the Computrace thing is implemented in part through a ME module then no, it would not be completely replaced by coreboot per se, but perhaps you could use me_cleaner to remove such a Computrace ME module (if there is one), and combined with coreboot replacing BIOS/UEFI then you would have removed all of it. It seems likely that you could get rid of it, but you should look for those technical details. //Peter

2 1

coreboot & Absolute "Computrace"
by David Potocnik 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

Hi, What is the coreboot view of the Absolute "Computrace" ware? If it is set to "Enabled" in the stock BIOS of a machine, and has an active subscription - the options to "Disable" and "Permanently Disable" are not accessible. Is it possible to remove/defuse this whole thing with a Coreboot flash? I am asking as I saw an auction for a number of Thinkpad X230's, noted to be sold with the Absolute system enabled. Some forum posts suggest the only way to disable an activated system like this is to contact the Absolute company, get them to contact the "original owner" of the machine, then, if they'll able to reach them, disable the ware from their end. Then, your machine is to be left running online "for some time" (in Windows, but also Debian is said to be "supported"!), and when the ware phones home next, will discover its new state, and unlock the BIOS option to "Permanently Disable" (wipe) it's own code. I'm very interested if flashing Coreboot would clean this up, as well as technical details about how the peculiar Absolute thing operates. Thank you all and kind regards, David

1 0

Re: [coreboot] uefi_nvs.bin in coreboot
by Jose Trujillo 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

Hello Ranga: From where you got this information / guide because I will try to do it myself. Jose. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 7:28 PM, galla rao <galla.rao80(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > am trying to save NVRAM variables which are modifed in Uefi Payload, but i could not save it. > > what is the role of uefi_nvs.bin file? > > coreboot/intel/mainboard/intel/bayleybay_fsp/uefi_nvs.bin > > Even the boot order does not save into NVRAM variables > > Can some one help me on this, Base address is given below > > gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdFlashNvStorageVariableBase | 0xFFF60000 > > gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdFlashNvStorageFtwWorkingBase | 0xFFF7E000 > > gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareBase | 0xFFF80000 > > In coreboot, i have given the same address > > [image.png] > > Thanks & Regards > Ranga

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
15
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 November 2018