1) Yes, I've been using my old builds until today; they work for the most part (I was originally trying to solve some other remaining issues, but then found that I could not build a working version anymore. Hence this thread)
2) No, I've been using 1440 x 900 the entire time
3) Will check. However, I just bricked my machine with a failed erase; so I'll have to wait until next week to swap the BIOS chip and then pick this up.

Are there any other coreboot build configurations that could cause these kinds of issues? It's entirely possible that I set something before I'm no longer doing, but I'm not sure what to be looking for there.

Also, does the Windows recovery environment use a different graphics stack / setup from the actual installation? As mentioned before, I can get into the former just fine, but not the latter without seeing the static.


On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:31 AM Nico Huber <nico.h@gmx.de> wrote:
On 29.12.19 10:32, Rafael Send wrote:
> - I'm running linear frame buffer, but not at native resolution. If I do,
> the boot menu text gets too small since this is a 13" 2k screen.
> - Payload is Tianocore
> - Windows is installed in UEFI (these last two have been the same
> configuration as always)

hmmm, three thoughts:

o have you re-tested your old builds to rule out changes in Windows?
o did you change the framebuffer resolution? IIRC, Windows is picky
   about the width of the framebuffer (try a multiple of 16).
o if neither the Windows installation nor the resolution are to
   blame, I'd check for changes in Tianocore.

> I didn't know the commit hash was embedded in the binary, I'll take a look
> and see if I can reproduce a working build.
> I do know that my display needed a patch to work correctly before this
> update <https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/35898>, but I'm unclear if
> THAT's what caused Windows to not work correctly (i.e whether the patch
> worked better or not). I guess if I start with the commit I originally used
> I can play around with cherry-picking that commit vs the previous patch).

That's unlikely to be related. The only thing Windows gets in touch with
is the framebuffer configuration, which is merely the resolution, stride
and a pointer into gfx memory. It doesn't care how the hardware was set
up to get there.


> R
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 5:00 AM Nico Huber <nico.h@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>> On 26.12.19 21:43, Rafael Send wrote:
>>> For the past month or two (I'm not actually sure WHEN it stopped
>> working) I
>>> haven't been able to successfully boot (any) Windows installations using
>>> libgfxinit.
>> libgfxinit just sets up a framebuffer, all the software compatibility
>> depends on how the framebuffer info is communicated (coreboot payload
>> mostly). Please tell us
>> o do you run a textmode or linear (native resolution) framebuffer?
>> o is your Windows in BIOS or EFI mode? (these are completely different
>>     cases wrt. the framebuffer)
>> o if you use SeaBIOS, please also attach your .config and the output
>>     of `build/cbfstool build/coreboot.rom print`. There are many, many
>>     variables with SeaBIOS with too many possible combinations.
>>> Mid-October I had created some builds that worked, but I'm not sure they
>>> were using master or something else at that point (only kept the binaries
>>> unfortunately).
>> coreboot binaries contain the commit hash and a defconfig they were
>> built with. You can compare that to your current built.
>> Nico