Re: [coreboot] Unable to build futility on 32-bit userspace

FWIW, there should be no reason to build crossystem as part of coreboot's compile-time utilities at all. crossystem is a helper meant to run on the target device (the one that uses vboot-enabled firmware), it doesn't make any sense to have it on the build machine. We should fix the Makefiles so

Re: [coreboot] Need help implementing romstage CBMEM

Oops, I've attached the boot log of a previous failed attempt. This boot log should be the correct one. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Keith Hui wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Kyösti Mälkki > wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:39 PM,

Re: [coreboot] Need help implementing romstage CBMEM

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Kyösti Mälkki wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Keith Hui wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> I'm still hard at work over the venerable (even "almighty" at the >> time) 440BX and Slot 1 boards. >> >> [1]

Re: [coreboot] Owner-controlled POWER9 Talos II [was: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/31/2017 03:23 AM, Merlin Büge wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:09:51 -0400 > "taii...@gmx.com" wrote: > >> On 08/30/2017 03:28 PM, Timothy Pearson wrote: >> POWER9 workstations are already coming on the market:

Re: [coreboot] REPLY: INT 13H

> I don't see a reason why it should be impossible to abolish Real Mode, Segmentation and basically everything beside Long-Mode > and virtual 32 Bit-mode. This is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium > The Operating-System-Manufactures would need a bit of time to change their operating

Re: [coreboot] REPLY: INT 13H

On 30.08.2017 14:54, Peter Stuge wrote: Compatibility is the only actual value of x86. Hi, I was often wondering why they don't at least try to get rid of the *very* old stuff when it's not possible to get rid of the middle-old stuff. It's understandable that it's necessary to provide a

Re: [coreboot] Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:09:51 -0400 "taii...@gmx.com" wrote: > On 08/30/2017 03:28 PM, Timothy Pearson wrote: > > >> POWER9 workstations are already coming on the market: > >> > >> https://raptorcs.com/TALOSII/ > >> > >> Note that IBM selling similar machines directly would

Re: [coreboot] Unable to build futility on 32-bit userspace

Dear Paul, Am Donnerstag, den 31.08.2017, 09:36 +0300 schrieb Paul Kocialkowski: > Le jeudi 31 août 2017 à 09:30 +0300, Paul Kocialkowski a écrit : > > Le jeudi 31 août 2017 à 08:13 +0200, Paul Menzel a écrit : > > > I haven’t tested this yet with a 64-bit userspace, but assume that > > >

Re: [coreboot] REPLY: INT 13H

Hello Peter, This is the main point of x86 architecture, since this PC XT compatibility went too far. INTEL tried to get rid of it, introducing ITANIUM architecture, written from scratch (considering BSP), but as I know, this project did not succeed, in the sense that this initiation of BSP did

Re: [coreboot] Unable to build futility on 32-bit userspace

Hi again, Le jeudi 31 août 2017 à 09:30 +0300, Paul Kocialkowski a écrit : > Le jeudi 31 août 2017 à 08:13 +0200, Paul Menzel a écrit : > > I haven’t tested this yet with a 64-bit userspace, but assume that > > works. Does somebody have a fix? > > Yeah sure, I'll craft one and submit it to

Re: [coreboot] Unable to build futility on 32-bit userspace

Hi, Le jeudi 31 août 2017 à 08:13 +0200, Paul Menzel a écrit : > Dear coreboot folks, > > > Trying to run `make test-abuild` on my system with a 32-bit userspace, > it looks like quite some boards require the program futility from > `util/futility`, but that fails to build with the error below.

[coreboot] Unable to build futility on 32-bit userspace

Dear coreboot folks, Trying to run `make test-abuild` on my system with a 32-bit userspace, it looks like quite some boards require the program futility from `util/futility`, but that fails to build with the error below. ``` /dev/shm/coreboot/util/futility(master) $ git describe