Re: [coreboot] using overlayfs to have several coreboot dev envs

A more portable solution to the "big toolchain" problem is to store the toolchain outside the coreboot tree. Something like $ util/crossgcc/buildgcc -D $HOME/.xgcc Then add $HOME/.xgcc/bin to your PATH. Regards, Patrick 2016-11-13 21:34 GMT+01:00 Charlotte Plusplus

[coreboot] native video init question

Hello Here is the current status of my W520: - native video init gives a garbled image (picture available upon request lol). it may be due to the resolution of the screen being hardcoded somewhere, or more likely me using the wrong information since the W520 uses 1980x1080 - non native video

Re: [coreboot] More experiments with disabling the ME

Hi Federico, You guys seem to have successfully built a usable coreboot image for x220. Could you share its revision and config file? I have never built such usable image till now. Besides, is script file me_cleaner.py downloadable somewhere? Persmule. 在 2016年11月12日 22:41, Federico Amedeo Izzo

Re: [coreboot] It appears the build process still uses unverified http wget sources

True, but quality security is about planning for the theoretical and not just closing the barn door after the animals have left already. I am sure there are quite a lot of things that the public doesn't know about, kept secret by the shady people and organizations of the world On 11/13/2016

Re: [coreboot] It appears the build process still uses unverified http wget sources

On 14.11.2016 00:06, taii...@gmx.com wrote: > Shouldn't we be using sha256 or sha512? I am not a crypto expert but > AFIAK couldn't sha1 collisions could be easily generated with the type > of resources available to someone who would want to attack coreboot? AFAIK, there is no known attack on

Re: [coreboot] It appears the build process still uses unverified http wget sources

Shouldn't we be using sha256 or sha512? I am not a crypto expert but AFIAK couldn't sha1 collisions could be easily generated with the type of resources available to someone who would want to attack coreboot? On 11/06/2016 07:15 PM, Iru Cai wrote: buildgcc can verify the SHA1 sum of the

Re: [coreboot] Bug?: Value in .config overwritten during make (Thinkpad T400/T500)

Hi Nico and Martin, thank you for your clarifications and the pointer to the documentation. On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:46:48 +0100 Nico Huber wrote: > what do you mean by `actual config`? how did you set it? If you edi- > ted .config manually, it's intended behavior. MAX_CPUS

Re: [coreboot] Bug?: Value in .config overwritten during make (Thinkpad T400/T500)

Hi Daniel, On 13.11.2016 19:22, Daniel Kulesz via coreboot wrote: > Hi folks, > > after several hours of trial & error I finally realized why the quadcore > CPU in my T500 does not get recognized: No matter what you set for > MAX_CPUS in .config, it gets overwritten during the build with a value

[coreboot] using overlayfs to have several coreboot dev envs

Hello With the cross compiling tool chain, coreboot takes 1G. If you are a bit short on space, or if you want to save writes to your SSD, instead of having multiple copies of the coreboot source folder, I have found out overlayfs is very practical. If you have done git clone in

[coreboot] Bug?: Value in .config overwritten during make (Thinkpad T400/T500)

Hi folks, after several hours of trial & error I finally realized why the quadcore CPU in my T500 does not get recognized: No matter what you set for MAX_CPUS in .config, it gets overwritten during the build with a value coming from src/mainboard/lenovo/t400 where the following is defined:

Re: [coreboot] X120e AGESA hangs

Hi, You can use Bolton datasheets, should be same/similar. http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/51192_Bolton_FCH_RRG.pdf The said register access is forcing to use overriden EFUSE values, so I would say you have to check how their are programmed. Maybe you are trying to enable the EC without EC