coreboot January 2023

coreboot@coreboot.org

28 participants
58 discussions

[coreboot - Feature #7] (Closed) gnawty support based on acer cb3-111
by Martin Roth 15 Jan '23

15 Jan '23

Issue #7 has been updated by Martin Roth. Status changed from In Progress to Closed No updates in 7 years. Closing. ---------------------------------------- Feature #7: gnawty support based on acer cb3-111 https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/7#change-1347 * Author: Alexander Couzens * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal * Assignee: Alexander Couzens * Category: board support * Start date: 2015-11-20 ---------------------------------------- Adding google gnawty boards. This board is very similiar to rambi, the only difference known is the ram configuration. http://review.coreboot.org/#/c/12500 https://www.coreboot.org/Board:acer/cb3-111 SeaBIOS hangs with message: Press F12 ... but pressing f12 does nothing. ~~Booting ELF payload with openwrt fails because e820 isn't properly passed.~~ Using Linux Payload + x64 kernel openwrt boots up. ---Files-------------------------------- bootup_x86_64_openwrt (60 KB) vga_bios_hangs (29.1 KB) dmesg (63.6 KB) lspci_vvv (10.3 KB) lspci (789 Bytes) lspci_vvttnn (716 Bytes) booting_4.1 (58.7 KB) booting_4.1_with_ioapic (63.5 KB) -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

1 0

[coreboot - Feature #4] (Closed) Documentation for coreboot's public interface
by Martin Roth 15 Jan '23

15 Jan '23

Issue #4 has been updated by Martin Roth. Status changed from New to Closed We've done a significant amount of work on coreboot's documentation over the past 7 years. Closing this as completed. If there is any additional documentation needed, please file a new bug stating exactly what needs to be documented. ---------------------------------------- Feature #4: Documentation for coreboot's public interface https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/4#change-1346 * Author: Patrick Georgi * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal * Start date: 2015-11-18 ---------------------------------------- We need some structured documentation on what can be expected to be the stable coreboot interface. This (probably) covers * cbfs (and in the future, fmap) format * cbtables (and its various table formats, incl. cbmem entries) * The calling convention into the payload (per arch) * references to ACPI, DMI, PIR, etc -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

1 0

[coreboot - Support #387] (New) Support Framework Laptop
by Jun Aruga 15 Jan '23

15 Jan '23

Issue #387 has been reported by Jun Aruga. ---------------------------------------- Support #387: Support Framework Laptop https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/387 * Author: Jun Aruga * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Category: board support * Target version: none * Start date: 2022-06-05 * Affected hardware: Framework Laptop ---------------------------------------- Dear coreboot developers, I am a user of Framework Laptop[1][2]. Thank you for working to make coreboot work on Framework Laptop! This ticket is to track the task, as I didn't see any other issue tickets about Framework Laptop here. According to the Framework founder's comment[3] below, Framework provided Framework Laptops to the coreboot community. > We've handed three systems that can boot unsigned bootloaders to folks in the coreboot community. Our plan in the near term is to help them create a shim loader that can be signed to run on any Framework Laptop, which then enables anyone to do further coreboot development. Then I saw Matthew's try to make the coreboot work on Framework Laptop,[4] but unfortunately it didn't work at that time.[5] How is the current status? What prevents coreboot from working on the Framework Laptop? How can we, people in the Framework community, help you? As a reference, there is a coreboot specific thread on the Framework community forum.[6] ## References * [1] https://frame.work/ * [2] Framework Computer - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Computer * [3] Framework Laptop Mainboard, Hacker News, April 20, 2022 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31097434 * [4] Matthew tries to port Coreboot to the Framework laptop - February 27, 2022 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf_6xW-8tfQ * [5] Matthew Garrett on Twitter, February 27, 2022 - https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1497788538212917250 * [6] Free the EC! and Coreboot Only - https://community.frame.work/t/free-the-ec-and-coreboot-only/791 -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

7 15

Thoughts on changing indentation for devicetree.cb files
by Martin Roth 15 Jan '23

15 Jan '23

I wanted to see what people think about changing the indentation for devicetree.cb files (including overridetree.cb and chipset.cb files) We currently use tabs to indent, which my editor has set to 8 spaces across all of coreboot, but these aren't C files, and maybe shouldn't be treated the same. We have deep indentations for the devicetree files, making the lines very long and causing them to wrap significantly when reviewing them in gerrit. I know I'm suggesting heresy here, but what do people think about changing the devicetree files to use indentation with spaces, at either 2 or 4 characters per level? I acknowledge that this could just be a me problem, but thought I'd bring it up. Martin

1 0

[coreboot - Cleanup #421] (New) Change API of functions taking hash as an argument
by Krystian Hebel 13 Jan '23

13 Jan '23

Issue #421 has been reported by Krystian Hebel. ---------------------------------------- Cleanup #421: Change API of functions taking hash as an argument https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/421 * Author: Krystian Hebel * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Target version: none * Start date: 2022-10-12 ---------------------------------------- All existing functions that take a digest as an input assume that only one hashing algorithm is used at a time. Crypto agile format entry can (and should) log every used PCR bank in one entry for a given measurement. To make it work, some of the arguments must be changed, e.g.: - pass number of algorithms used; - instead of algorithm ID, pass a pointer to array of such IDs, with size equal to above; - instead of hash, pass a pointer to array of hashes, with size and order as above. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

4 15

devicetree driven reference code / blob configuration
by Arthur Heymans 12 Jan '23

12 Jan '23

Hi all On most modern x86 systems a lot of the silicon init happens as part of blob (FSP, binaryPI) or some reference code (AGESA). Very often that silicon init enables or hides PCI devices. This means that this code needs to run before coreboot device enumeration code. With coreboot's current ramstage state machine running this binary can only happen as part of chip_ops->init or with a bootstate hook. As a quick reminder about the coreboot ramstage state machine: * start * | * BS_PRE_DEVICE * | * BS_DEV_INIT_CHIPS * | * BS_DEV_ENUMERATE * | the rest (device resource allocation, device init, ...) BS_DEV_INIT_CHIPS: - Call the .init from all the chip_ops from each "chip" once. FSP-S loading, configuring and calling is currently set up as a monolithic call inside such chip_ops->init. It has a lot of callbacks for soc and mainboard and consumes the devicetree in one big soc specific function, with little reuse between socs. All the silicon configuration can only be put into a monolithic soc chip_info and is translated into FSP UPDs. BS_DEV_ENUMERATE: - call static chip_ops->enable_dev on each static device on the devicetree. On older non-RC using code enabling or hiding PCI devices is done here. - scan the actual hardware (e.g. PCI bus) for what is there. What will be found is depends on the params passed to the reference code which will hide/enable devices Both the monolithic configuration, one big chip_info, and code flow don't follow coreboot's state machine philosophy, where the devicetree nodes drive the configuration process and codeflow. It would be nicer if device enabling and other configuration would be structured on a per node basis. So for instance all the USB configuration options would be below the xhci device node and not globally available to all nodes. Based on a discussion on IRC there are a few options, which are generally not mutually exclusive or share similar ideas: 1) Split up the DEV_ENUMERATE into a static devicetree part and a scan part. In combination with calling FSP between those two parts this would allow the chip_ops->enable_dev to be called on each device and so UPD setup could be modularised. This is still rather monolithic as the enable_dev is the same function callback for each device but it could be more modularised because the struct device is passed as an argument. So something like: switch (dev->path.pci.devfn) { case PCI_DEV(0, 0): do_something() case PCI_DEV(0x1f, 0): do_something_else() } is possible. So this at least removes all the current callbacks. 2) Move devices below separate chips and split up FSP loading, configuring and calling. Then then devicetree looks like this chip soc/intel/.../usb device ref xhci on end register "config_option_1" = "A" register "config_option_2" = "B" end If the FSP loading is separated from the calling, for instance by moving it earlier in a cbmem init hook or bootstate ENTRY hook, then each chip_ops .init could configure FSP UPDs based. The calling of FSP can then happen as part of bootstate EXIT hook. A disadvantage here would be that this would add a lot of "chips" which is not recommended for things that are not a separate physical chip. 3) Allow for a per device configuration. https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/41745 implements this. This would easily allow per device configuration without introducing new chips. 4) Since it is now possible to hook up device ops directly in the devicetree we could add a new device specific entry to ops that a new bootstate executes before scanning buses. A enable_dev, but not on the chip_ops level but device level. One thing to note is that scan_bus will not give default PCI ops to devices anymore if ops is !NULL. This can be worked around by setting ops to NULL after calling this new ops on devices where the default pci ops are desirable. Another way would be to allow more finegrained control when writing the devicetree about which ops can be set directly in the devicetree. It looks like 3 + 4 would be the cleanest, but it should maybe not block trying out 1 and 2. The splitting of device specific configuration is possible in 1 and 2 and migrating to solutions of 3 and 4 would be rather trivial. Any thoughts on this? Arthur

1 0

Coreboot Machine-Check Exception
by Ahmet Fenerci 11 Jan '23

11 Jan '23

Hi, After I configure coreboot4.16 on my board(Intel Atom C3758) and run it, I'm having a problem with some runs (sometimes in rapid succession, sometimes very rarely). There are some machine-check exceptions (18- #MC) when I boot or reboot my operation system. You can have a detailed look at the link here : "https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TC_3OEooulHbGcRxybTuFz7oqkFpOf4B?us…" To solve the problem, I reviwed your guides "Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 1: Basic Architecture" and "Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 3 (3A, 3B, 3C & 3D): System Programming Guide". When I want to look at the source of the problem with the error code in "Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 3 (3A, 3B, 3C & 3D): System Programming Guide", here is the a information about machine-check exception. ( 6.15 EXCEPTION AND INTERRUPT REFERENCE - Interrupt 18- Machine-Check Exception (#MC) ) Lastly, I checked the "Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 4: Model-Specific Registers" to solve problem, but I couldn't find the source of the problem. I have a few questions ; 1- What is the source of the machine-check exception problem and why does it happen occasionally? 2- As seen in the MC Exception error content in the given google drive link ( Unexpected Exception:18 @ 10:7f998256 ) , at here ;18 indicates to Machine-Check Exception. What does 10 indicate here? ( 7f998256 is an address at Ramstage) 3- 0xdeadbeef errors are seen at some addresses of ramstage, what is the reason?

2 1

[coreboot - Bug #448] (New) Thinkpad T440P ACPI Battery Value Issues
by Karsten Schnier 11 Jan '23

11 Jan '23

Issue #448 has been reported by Karsten Schnier. ---------------------------------------- Bug #448: Thinkpad T440P ACPI Battery Value Issues https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/448 * Author: Karsten Schnier * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Target version: none * Start date: 2023-01-11 * Affected versions: master * Related links: [[https://github.com/linrunner/TLP/issues/657]] * Affected hardware: Thinkpad T440p * Affected OS: Artix / Arch Linux ---------------------------------------- Hello, I have been having some issues with TLP on my corebooted T440p. I am running artix linux with grub on top of coreboot (self compiled libreboot). I have had issues with the ACPI battery readings. Coreboot does not provide power readings, but instead only current readings. More details can be found in the TLP github issue: [[https://github.com/linrunner/TLP/issues/657#issuecomment-1293730559]]. This causes TLP to not recognize the thinkpad and go to default mode. Additional, it prevents recalibration of the battery even when the thinkpad battery driver is forced. Is this due to misconfiguration in the coreboot build or issues with coreboot itself? Thank you! -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

1 0

[coreboot - Bug #446] (New) Optiplex 9010 No Post
by Aaron Burton 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

Issue #446 has been reported by Aaron Burton. ---------------------------------------- Bug #446: Optiplex 9010 No Post https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/446 * Author: Aaron Burton * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Target version: none * Start date: 2023-01-09 ---------------------------------------- Working with an Optiplex 9010 SFF, configured and built coreboot as usual against the Optiplex 9010 SFF platform in menuconfig. Left every other setting alone in terms of configuration. Included EC firmware, ME, GBE, IFD blobs from stock firmware into my build. Turns on with fans at normal speed (not full blast), but no keyboard illumination or display output. Using SeaBIOS 1.16.1. Any suggestions as to what may be going on? Thanks. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

3 5

Re: Toolchain build on Ubuntu 22.04 fails (at GCC 8.3.0)?
by Mike Banon 09 Jan '23

09 Jan '23

Hi there Rafael, Please tell me, what is a platform for which you are going to build a coreboot? Seeing that you have downgraded your toolchain's GCC version to 8.3.0, like I'm suggesting in this manual - http://dangerousprototypes.com/docs/Lenovo_G505S_hacking - I suspect that your platform is the "opensource AMD AGESA" one, i.e. Lenovo G505S (or ASUS A88XM-E or ASUS AM1I-A). If that's really true, then you don't need the gcc-ada at all, and it is preferable that you remove a gcc-ada from your OS at all before trying to build a coreboot 8.3.0 toolchain to avoid the possible errors (so that the toolchain gets built without Ada). On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 2:51 AM Rafael Send <flyingfishfinger(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I'm trying to "make crossgcc" for coreboot, but it fails at building GCC 8.3.0. As far as I can tell, coreboot uses (this) specific version to make sure things work right, but I'm not sure why this is going wrong. > > The system gnat version is 10.4.0, but I did read somewhere that the Ada version should match the gcc one. Does that mean gnat-8 is required? That's not a thing that I can find. > > I've attached the suggested build.log file, can anyone suggest how to resolve this issue? > > Thanks, > Rafael > _______________________________________________ > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot(a)coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave(a)coreboot.org -- Best regards, Mike Banon Open Source Community Manager of 3mdeb - https://3mdeb.com/

6 15

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot January 2023