Re: [coreboot] G505s status (and test report)

[echelon]

Thank you Felix!
And also I see that your tool fch_xhci_rom_dumper is on github, great!..
As for adding support for Bolton and refactoring and unifying the FCH code, I 
would like to pick up the task, because I want to invest myself in coreboot dev 
again and I hope that I will have some time to spend in the near future...
But I need to understand a little bit more the current architecture of coreboot 
and also the impact of recent developpements like the (proposed) switch from 
AGESA to native init..
But just to have an idea of the complexity of this task (refactoring amd fch 
code) can you give me some details of what needs to be done?
Regards,
 Florentin

- Mail d'origine -
De: Felix Held 
À: coreboot@coreboot.org
Envoyé: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 04:57:05 +0100 (CET)
Objet: Re: [coreboot] G505s status (and test report)

Hi Florentin!

>   -3) The USB3 does NOT work : the 3rdparty xhci blob 
> (${COREBOOT}/3rdparty/blobs/southbridge/amd/hudson/xhci.bin) is not correct!..
> PLEASE HELP : can someone give me a tip or advice, how to extract this blob 
> (from uefi image or/sys/)?
You have to use the Bolton USB3 blob if you want to get USB3 somewhere 
near working; it's in the blobs repo. The laptop uses a Bolton and not a 
Hudson FCH, which have a newer version of the XHCI controller component 
(I've verified that they have different boot-ROMs; my 
fch_xhci_rom_dumper can extract both ).
I wrote some patch selecting the right blob (still somewhere in gerrit), 
but you need to patch the vendorcode to get USB3 working (at least at 
some place in the code it matches onto the PCI ID of the XHCI 
controller, which is different). I stopped my efforts to add support for 
Bolton to source AGESA, since doing stuff right would at least imply 
refactoring and unifying the FCH code if not rewriting it and I'm not 
really motivated to do that in my spare time.

Regards
Felix

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot


-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] Rebuilding coreboot image generation

[Kevin O'Connor]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:42:02PM +0100, Patrick Georgi wrote:
> Hey coreboot folks,
> 
> I'm looking for an approach to make building Chrome OS style coreboot
> images easier to do with regular coreboot tools, instead of the rather
> large post-processing pipeline we have in the Chrome OS build system.
> 
> The rationale is that we also push the Chrome OS capabilities (eg.
> verified boot) upstream, and actually using them shouldn't depend on
> checking out yet another custom build environment.
> 
> I wrote a proposal on how to do that, which can be found and commented
> at 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o2bFl5HCHDFPccQsOwa-75A8TWojjFiGK3r0yeIc7Vo/edit

It seems to me that similar functionality could be obtained by
enhancing (or replacing) cbfstool.  If possible, that seems simpler
than adding a new tool, a new custom language, and a new layer to the
build.

For example, instead of a "Chipset manifest" file, I think one could
run commands like:

$ cbfs2tool coreboot.rom add-region "IFD" --start=0 --end=4K
$ cbfs2tool coreboot.rom add-raw build/ifd.bin --region="IFD" --align=bottom 
--empty=0xff
$ cbfs2tool coreboot.rom add-region "ME" --start=4K --end=4M
...

The above would require cbfstool (or its replacement) to track some
additional metadata (either in the rom itself or in a similarly named
file).  However, that seems simpler than introducing a new tool.

Just my $.02
-Kevin

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)

[echelon]

Hello,

I would like to remind everybody that there is a doodle about the organisation 
of the next coreboot meeting (hackaton) -> 
http://doodle.com/poll/6udccyrsqtqy2ndt
I kindly ask you to answer this pool, because it will help me to determine the 
optimal time frame for this event. Even if you aren't sure 100%, answer please, 
this is only an indicative pool for me..
It is very import to know how many people are (even remotely..) interested, 
especially if the event has to be organized at an early date (say just after 
the FOSDEM 2016..).

By the way, I would like to make a suggestion : if the pool results finally 
converge to some kind of "bipolar distribution" ( ;-) ), i.o.w. there is a 
group of people who favor a spring meeting and another group who favor a fall 
meeting, maybe we should "split" the coreboot hackaton and make 2 
"sub-hackatons".. ;-) But in this case, someone else should pick up the task to 
organise the other meeting, because I cannot manage alone two coreboot meetings 
in one year..

What do you think?

 Florentin

- Mail d'origine -
De: ron minnich 
À: Stefan Reinauer , David Hendricks 

Cc: coreboot , eche...@free.fr
Envoyé: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:43:25 +0100 (CET)
Objet: Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)

So, I think in the next day, we should pick the location and date for the
"spring" meeting. I'd also suggest it be a 6 month interval between
meetings, which is the other reason I thought end of  january was a bit too
soon.

Sound OK?

What Stefan says is very true. I have friends here in the US who must have
2016 travel approved by dec. 31 2015.

ron

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM Stefan Reinauer 
wrote:

> * David Hendricks  [151102 21:00]:
> > Piggybacking on other conferences can certainly help overseas
> travellers. Are
> > there other major conferences later in the year?
> >
> > Hosting after FOSDEM 2016 actually seems ideal and it will be in
> Brussels (<2
> > hours away by train, or <1 hour by flight). It is a bit soon after the
> Bonn
> > conference, though but maybe that won't matter? This isn't intended to
> be a big
> > formal event anyway. If you get enough community members in the Doodle
> poll I
> > think you should go for it :-)
>
> I also want to double stress the importance of getting an official
> invitation out early is crucial. People from overseas might need to go
> through a visa application process to attend, which might take several
> months (and is not seldomly tied to an official invitation)
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>


-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

[coreboot] Re : Re: Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)

[echelon]

Oh, another thing : I just realized that I haven't selected the three choice 
configuration for this pool (yes, maybe yes, not), so I will interpret all the 
positive results as a "weak" yes (yes if needed..)

- Mail d'origine -
De: eche...@free.fr
À: coreboot 
Envoyé: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 15:57:34 +0100 (CET)
Objet: Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)

Hello,

I would like to remind everybody that there is a doodle about the organisation 
of the next coreboot meeting (hackaton) -> 
http://doodle.com/poll/6udccyrsqtqy2ndt
I kindly ask you to answer this pool, because it will help me to determine the 
optimal time frame for this event. Even if you aren't sure 100%, answer please, 
this is only an indicative pool for me..
It is very import to know how many people are (even remotely..) interested, 
especially if the event has to be organized at an early date (say just after 
the FOSDEM 2016..).

By the way, I would like to make a suggestion : if the pool results finally 
converge to some kind of "bipolar distribution" ( ;-) ), i.o.w. there is a 
group of people who favor a spring meeting and another group who favor a fall 
meeting, maybe we should "split" the coreboot hackaton and make 2 
"sub-hackatons".. ;-) But in this case, someone else should pick up the task to 
organise the other meeting, because I cannot manage alone two coreboot meetings 
in one year..

What do you think?

 Florentin

- Mail d'origine -
De: ron minnich 
À: Stefan Reinauer , David Hendricks 

Cc: coreboot , eche...@free.fr
Envoyé: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:43:25 +0100 (CET)
Objet: Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)

So, I think in the next day, we should pick the location and date for the
"spring" meeting. I'd also suggest it be a 6 month interval between
meetings, which is the other reason I thought end of  january was a bit too
soon.

Sound OK?

What Stefan says is very true. I have friends here in the US who must have
2016 travel approved by dec. 31 2015.

ron

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM Stefan Reinauer 
wrote:

> * David Hendricks  [151102 21:00]:
> > Piggybacking on other conferences can certainly help overseas
> travellers. Are
> > there other major conferences later in the year?
> >
> > Hosting after FOSDEM 2016 actually seems ideal and it will be in
> Brussels (<2
> > hours away by train, or <1 hour by flight). It is a bit soon after the
> Bonn
> > conference, though but maybe that won't matter? This isn't intended to
> be a big
> > formal event anyway. If you get enough community members in the Doodle
> poll I
> > think you should go for it :-)
>
> I also want to double stress the importance of getting an official
> invitation out early is crucial. People from overseas might need to go
> through a visa application process to attend, which might take several
> months (and is not seldomly tied to an official invitation)
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>


-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)

[echelon]

update : this pool will be closed next Sunday october 15 at 23 PM

- Mail d'origine -
De: eche...@free.fr
À: coreboot 
Envoyé: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 15:57:34 +0100 (CET)
Objet: Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)

Hello,

I would like to remind everybody that there is a doodle about the organisation 
of the next coreboot meeting (hackaton) -> 
http://doodle.com/poll/6udccyrsqtqy2ndt
I kindly ask you to answer this pool, because it will help me to determine the 
optimal time frame for this event. Even if you aren't sure 100%, answer please, 
this is only an indicative pool for me..
It is very import to know how many people are (even remotely..) interested, 
especially if the event has to be organized at an early date (say just after 
the FOSDEM 2016..).

By the way, I would like to make a suggestion : if the pool results finally 
converge to some kind of "bipolar distribution" ( ;-) ), i.o.w. there is a 
group of people who favor a spring meeting and another group who favor a fall 
meeting, maybe we should "split" the coreboot hackaton and make 2 
"sub-hackatons".. ;-) But in this case, someone else should pick up the task to 
organise the other meeting, because I cannot manage alone two coreboot meetings 
in one year..

What do you think?

 Florentin

- Mail d'origine -
De: ron minnich 
À: Stefan Reinauer , David Hendricks 

Cc: coreboot , eche...@free.fr
Envoyé: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:43:25 +0100 (CET)
Objet: Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)

So, I think in the next day, we should pick the location and date for the
"spring" meeting. I'd also suggest it be a 6 month interval between
meetings, which is the other reason I thought end of  january was a bit too
soon.

Sound OK?

What Stefan says is very true. I have friends here in the US who must have
2016 travel approved by dec. 31 2015.

ron

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM Stefan Reinauer 
wrote:

> * David Hendricks  [151102 21:00]:
> > Piggybacking on other conferences can certainly help overseas
> travellers. Are
> > there other major conferences later in the year?
> >
> > Hosting after FOSDEM 2016 actually seems ideal and it will be in
> Brussels (<2
> > hours away by train, or <1 hour by flight). It is a bit soon after the
> Bonn
> > conference, though but maybe that won't matter? This isn't intended to
> be a big
> > formal event anyway. If you get enough community members in the Doodle
> poll I
> > think you should go for it :-)
>
> I also want to double stress the importance of getting an official
> invitation out early is crucial. People from overseas might need to go
> through a visa application process to attend, which might take several
> months (and is not seldomly tied to an official invitation)
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>


-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot