WiP: FB_EFI (EFIFB kernel module's framebuffer on top of libgfxinit or GOP) next steps related cleanups #1522
Conversation
This is expected. Huge pages are not supported at all in Xen dom0, regardless of settings. |
tlaurion
force-pushed
the
efifb_next_step_related_cleanups
branch
from
78e6b5a
to
1c54d44
Compare
config/linux-nitropad-x.config
Outdated
| @@ -1989,6 +2010,7 @@ CONFIG_FB_DEFERRED_IO=y | |||
| # CONFIG_FB_IMSTT is not set | |||
| # CONFIG_FB_VGA16 is not set | |||
| CONFIG_FB_VESA=y | |||
| # CONFIG_FB_EFI is not set | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Something is wrong here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fixed under 3a648df
tlaurion
force-pushed
the
efifb_next_step_related_cleanups
branch
from
4973fc6
to
5f0e69c
Compare
| @@ -2793,6 +2815,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGETLB_PAGE_OPTIMIZE_VMEMMAP=y | |||
| CONFIG_MEMFD_CREATE=y | |||
| CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE=y | |||
| # CONFIG_CONFIGFS_FS is not set | |||
| CONFIG_EFIVAR_FS=m | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not needed. Nothing compiled as modules is considered but on-demand kernel modules loaded by scripts.
Will pass configs to oldefconfig and advise @daringer @JonathonHall-Purism to compare with x230-maximized which turned off most of the modules, but for an older kernel version. Otherwise compile time for kernel is way longer then needed and for absolutely no outcome: kernel drivers compiled as modules are not packed under modules.cpio unless explicitly defined under modules/linux to be packed under initrd.
tlaurion
changed the title
tlaurion
changed the title
|
And here we go again folks with unbricking capabilities (external flashing recovery). Internal flashing as normal, but if needs be, you might have to flash back master top and bottom roms if needed externally. I want to bring awareness that dGPU testing is badly needed, where again main screen should be iGPU on boot and should not be impacted by present changes, but who knows. Roms as usual can be downloaded per this PR checks and the following instructions apply here as on master. Just click: Testing needed for unticketed platforms below
|
Works perfectly, no issues with GUI/console scaling. |
|
https://output.circle-artifacts.com/output/job/82dfe1cb-ad9d-413c-a841-6b41e48b2e69/artifacts/0/build/x86/z220-cmt-hotp-maximized/heads-z220-cmt-hotp-maximized-v0.2.0-1841-gd110a64.rom on the HP Z220 works. No progress bar when reflashing (successfully) back to the rom I'd been using though. @tlaurion
…On 10 November 2023 18:33:16 UTC, tlaurion ***@***.***> wrote:
And here we go again folks with unbricking capabilities (external flashing recovery). Internal flashing as normal, but if needs be, you might have to flash back master top and bottom roms if needed externally.
I want to bring awareness that dGPU testing is badly needed, where again main screen should be iGPU on boot and should not be impacted by present changes, but who knows. Roms as usual can be downloaded per this PR checks and the following instructions apply here as on master. Just click:
and follow https://osresearch.net/Downloading
Testing needed for unchecked platforms:
- [ ] x220 (xx20): @Thrilleratplay @BlackMaria @srgrint
- [ ] [t420](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t420.html) (xx20): @alexmaloteaux @natterangell (iGPU) @akfhasodh @doob85
- [ ] [t430](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t430.html) (xx30): @nestire(t430-legacy, t430-maximized) @Thrilleratplay @alexmaloteaux @lsafd @bwachter(iGPU maximized) @shamen123 @eganonoa(iGPU) @nitrosimon @jans23 @icequbes1 (iGPU) @weyounsix (t430-dgpu) @SvenSemmler (t430-hotp-maximized)
- [ ] [t430s](https://www.coreboot.org/Board:lenovo/t430s) and #1019 (xx30): @Siproqu
- [ ] [t520](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t520.html) (xx30): NOBODY
- [ ] [t530](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t530.html) (xx30): @3hhh
- [ ] [w530](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/w530.html) (xx30): @eganonoa @zifxify @weyounsix (dGPU: w530-k2000m) @jnscmns (dGPU K1000M) @computer-user123 (w530 / & w530 k2000 : prefers iGPU)
- [ ] x230 (xx30): @nestire(x230-legacy, x230-maximized) @tlaurion(maximized) @osresearch @merge @jan23 @MrChromebox @shamen123 @eganonoa @bwachter @Thrilleratplay @jnscmns @doob85
- [ ] X230i (x230): @natterangell
- [ ] x230-fhd/edp variant: @n4ru @computer-user123 (nitro caster board) @Tonux599 @househead @pcm720 (eDP 4.0 board and 1440p display)
- [ ] [t440p](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t440p.html): @ThePlexus @srgrint @akunterkontrolle @rbreslow
- [ ] w541 (similar to [t440p](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t440p.html)): @resende-gustavo @gaspar-ilom
- [ ] Librem 11(JasperLake): @JonathonHall-Purism
- [ ] Librem 13v2 (Skylake): @JonathonHall-Purism
- [ ] Librem 13v4 (Kabylake): @JonathonHall-Purism
- [ ] Librem 14 (CometLake): @JonathonHall-Purism
- [ ] Librem 15v3 (Skylake): @JonathonHall-Purism
- [ ] Librem 15v4 (Kabylake): @JonathonHall-Purism
- [ ] Librem L1UM v1 (Broadwell): @JonathonHall-Purism
- [ ] Librem L1Um v2 (CoffeeLake): @JonathonHall-Purism
- [ ] Talos II: @tlaurion
- [ ] [ASUS P8Z77 M PRO (Ivy bridge)](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/asus/p8z77-m_pro.html): @ThePlexus
- [ ] #1399: @d-wid
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#1522 (comment)
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
@d-wid this is odd. Last changes on flash.sh are from a long time ago. Can you post the version string you use on your current rom? Screenshot of system info would be good. Maybe output of "flashrom -p internal" as well? |
|
I hope attachments can be sent through E-Mail.
If so here are pictures from the OLD rom (which showed a progress bar when I first flashed this PR's rom to it)
…On 10 November 2023 21:05:14 UTC, tlaurion ***@***.***> wrote:
> https://output.circle-artifacts.com/output/job/82dfe1cb-ad9d-413c-a841-6b41e48b2e69/artifacts/0/build/x86/z220-cmt-hotp-maximized/heads-z220-cmt-hotp-maximized-v0.2.0-1841-gd110a64.rom on the HP Z220 works. No progress bar when reflashing (successfully) back to the rom I'd been using though. @tlaurion
>
>
> On 10 November 2023 18:33:16 UTC, tlaurion ***@***.***> wrote:
> >And here we go again folks with unbricking capabilities (external flashing recovery). Internal flashing as normal, but if needs be, you might have to flash back master top and bottom roms if needed externally.
> >
> >I want to bring awareness that dGPU testing is badly needed, where again main screen should be iGPU on boot and should not be impacted by present changes, but who knows. Roms as usual can be downloaded per this PR checks and the following instructions apply here as on master. Just click:
> >
> >and follow https://osresearch.net/Downloading
> >
> >Testing needed for unchecked platforms:
> >- [ ] x220 (xx20): @Thrilleratplay @BlackMaria @srgrint
> >- [ ] [t420](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t420.html) (xx20): @alexmaloteaux @natterangell (iGPU) @akfhasodh @doob85
> >- [ ] [t430](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t430.html) (xx30): @nestire(t430-legacy, t430-maximized) @Thrilleratplay @alexmaloteaux @lsafd @bwachter(iGPU maximized) @shamen123 @eganonoa(iGPU) @nitrosimon @jans23 @icequbes1 (iGPU) @weyounsix (t430-dgpu) @SvenSemmler (t430-hotp-maximized)
> >- [ ] [t430s](https://www.coreboot.org/Board:lenovo/t430s) and #1019 (xx30): @Siproqu
> >- [ ] [t520](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t520.html) (xx30): NOBODY
> >- [ ] [t530](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t530.html) (xx30): @3hhh
> >- [ ] [w530](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/w530.html) (xx30): @eganonoa @zifxify @weyounsix (dGPU: w530-k2000m) @jnscmns (dGPU K1000M) @computer-user123 (w530 / & w530 k2000 : prefers iGPU)
> >- [ ] x230 (xx30): @nestire(x230-legacy, x230-maximized) @tlaurion(maximized) @osresearch @merge @jan23 @MrChromebox @shamen123 @eganonoa @bwachter @Thrilleratplay @jnscmns @doob85
> >- [ ] X230i (x230): @natterangell
> >- [ ] x230-fhd/edp variant: @n4ru @computer-user123 (nitro caster board) @Tonux599 @househead @pcm720 (eDP 4.0 board and 1440p display)
> >- [ ] [t440p](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t440p.html): @ThePlexus @srgrint @akunterkontrolle @rbreslow
> >- [ ] w541 (similar to [t440p](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/lenovo/t440p.html)): @resende-gustavo @gaspar-ilom
> >- [ ] Librem 11(JasperLake): @JonathonHall-Purism
> >- [ ] Librem 13v2 (Skylake): @JonathonHall-Purism
> >- [ ] Librem 13v4 (Kabylake): @JonathonHall-Purism
> >- [ ] Librem 14 (CometLake): @JonathonHall-Purism
> >- [ ] Librem 15v3 (Skylake): @JonathonHall-Purism
> >- [ ] Librem 15v4 (Kabylake): @JonathonHall-Purism
> >- [ ] Librem L1UM v1 (Broadwell): @JonathonHall-Purism
> >- [ ] Librem L1Um v2 (CoffeeLake): @JonathonHall-Purism
> >- [ ] Talos II: @tlaurion
> >- [ ] [ASUS P8Z77 M PRO (Ivy bridge)](https://doc.coreboot.org/mainboard/asus/p8z77-m_pro.html): @ThePlexus
> >- [ ] #1399: @d-wid
> >
> >--
> >Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> >#1522 (comment)
> >You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> >
> >Message ID: ***@***.***>
>
@d-wid this is odd. Last changes on flash.sh are from a long time ago. Can you post the version string you use on your current rom? Screenshot of system info would be good. Maybe output of "flashrom -p internal" as well.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#1522 (comment)
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
@d-wid attachement didn't make it through no. Can you get the last part of the rom name after -gxxxxxxxx that would be the commit of your current rom. |
|
No can do. Probably because I still built this from a fork I made in order to make the #1399 PR. I guess I'll just try building the current version from master locally and see if I get issues trying to flash that instead. |
unfortunately I've just noticed something:
No issues as far as that is concerned, unless Heads has magically gained the ability to use an R9 Fury. |
Resize is not setuped in coreboot config. Could be though. For color inversion that is weird since swap is also not defined. You can play with those setting around heads/config/coreboot-z220-cmt.config Line 42 in d110a64
Sorry I didn't mean dGPU configs in general, I was talking about dGPU board configs :) |
|
Reviewed change to config/linux-librem_common-6.1.8.config, only change is conversion to oldconfig, compared with master. LGTM 👍 |
|
@d-wid following my previous comments, those patches under 4.19 patch directory have been reworked and merged upstream on newer versions of coreboot, where the pointed 4.19 coreboot configuration can be changed to resize, swap colors and/or center bootsplash. As of now, Heads points to a 1024x768 jpeg and is asked by config to center, not resize and keep 70% of its original quality doing so. This is best I could do without having the hardware in question, but if tested esthetics is better with board specific tweaks, PR welcome! |
|
Have tested heads-t440p-maximized-v0.2.0-1841-gd110a64.rom on my t440p. Seems to work fine. |
|
Have tested heads-x220-maximized-v0.2.0-1841-gd110a64.rom. No obvious problems. |
|
I tested the W541 hotp-maximized and did not encounter any obvious issues. The only thing I noticed is that the hashes.txt contains no hash for the 12M rom but the the hash for the bottom rom shows up twice. The same happens also for other boards like the t440p. I did not analyze this, just something I found worth mentioning. |
…iommu=igfx_off, add CONFIG_BOOT_KERNEL_REMOVE=intel_iommu=on intel_iommu=igfx_off, remove quiet removal from CONFIG_BOOT_KERNEL_REMOVE. TLDR: do not interfere with OS setting its own boot policies Signed-off-by: Thierry Laurion <[email protected]>
…s. TODO: check linux config to see if enabling automatically works as expected. Signed-off-by: Thierry Laurion <[email protected]>
…all intel boards touched in past commit Touches c216, x230-flash, x230-legacy and x230-maximized. TODO: Other boards, including AMD ones (qemu/kgpe) have this ON, including nv41/ns50 (which uses i915drm which most probably causes problems) Note that qemu boards use q35 in config, but were made to have both i440fx and q35, where q35 is tested, which explains why its on by default there. Signed-off-by: Thierry Laurion <[email protected]>
|
Tested t430-maximized/heads-t430-maximized-v0.2.0-1924-ga7fe284.rom on my intel graphics t430. Seems to work fine. |
|
So as of today: Testing needed for unticketed platforms below
This means from current list of untested boards that
needs to be moved from tested to untested until reported tested. I try to move board to untested from PR associated with which PR a board started to be untested by currently associated board owners. So @ThePlexus @3hhh@alexmaloteaux @natterangell (iGPU) @akfhasodh @doob85 @d-wid : Last call to test this PR and report result prior of the boards to continue to produce tested roms for others to flash with confidence. This means those boards are not properly tested by daily owners of boards and should eventually be deprecated. We cannot wait forever for PR to be tested which stops merging for other boards. Unless people are willing to donate boards or board owners are responsive, I cannot leave untested boards rom be thought tested while they aren't. Nex commit in this PR is to prefix aforementioned boards with UNTESTED in board directory, alongside all other currently untested board configs. |
|
I can test t420 this coming weekend, will report back. |
|
Will also test in the weekend.
…On 7 December 2023 20:35:28 UTC, natterangell ***@***.***> wrote:
I can test t420 this coming weekend, will report back.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#1522 (comment)
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
@d-wid @natterangell are you aware of other board owners with external programmers? I feel like I need to seperate boards and configs again so that each boards can be tested independently and PR like this don't stay open for months. Not sure how to handle this properly to reduce delay between PR creation and merge time. |
|
@tlaurion I'm not, though I'd invite anyone reading this who's looking to get a Tower PC to consider one if there's a used example for cheap nearby😄
The newest build from this PR also works on my machine, but is this a repeat of #1522 (comment) or has something changed again that warranted testing?
…On 8 December 2023 13:54:36 UTC, tlaurion ***@***.***> wrote:
@d-wid are you aware of other board owners with external programmers?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#1522 (comment)
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Sorry about that let me check real quick. So you said having tested Let's build a compare url: And see if z220-cmt linux/coreboot/board config changed:
@d-wid so I consider this board tested with a7fe284! Thank you! |
ASUS P8Z77 M PRO (Ivy bridge): @ThePlexus Note that w530 was already marked as UNTESTED. Please look for board config and click on blame to see what changed that needs to be tested prior of asking for that board to be moved back as other tested boards. Next commit will move those boards to UNTESTED_boards. This needs to be merged and Heads to move on. Sorry folks. |
…inuxboot#1522 (comment). Note that w530 was already marked as UNTESTED, look for commit having moved this board as untested. Signed-off-by: Thierry Laurion <[email protected]>
|
@JonathonHall-Purism Would need an approval for merge here once CI build passes :) |
…inuxboot#1522 (comment). Note that w530 was already marked as UNTESTED, look for commit having moved this board as untested. Signed-off-by: Thierry Laurion <[email protected]>
tlaurion
force-pushed
the
efifb_next_step_related_cleanups
branch
from
eb9d7e2
to
0dbbae5
Compare
…=igfx_off equally as for NS50 under 2fcef4a and tested for NS50 at linuxboot#1522 (comment) Signed-off-by: Thierry Laurion <[email protected]>
…=igfx_off equally as for NS50 under 2fcef4a and tested for NS50 at linuxboot#1522 (comment) Signed-off-by: Thierry Laurion <[email protected]>
tlaurion
force-pushed
the
efifb_next_step_related_cleanups
branch
from
7aefa97
to
e0fabb1
Compare
|
@tlaurion, I apologize for the late reply. Since this PR has been merged I just flashed the current master artifact for the (hotp-maximized) t420 (heads-UNTESTED_t420-hotp-maximized-v0.2.0-1952-g25d7b06.rom). And I can confirm it works fine! So there is no need for the t420 to be labeled untested. Merry Christmas! |
Please open an issue @natterangell ! At this point, that platform as many other is not tested promptly enough, when needed, to be considered tested in a rolling release. Not enough known willing testers with external programmers are engaged into testing needed changes that could impact the booting. This is now the issue to be resolved. Unless I have time to automatize switching board names and Circleci configs automatically, those boards are now a maintainership problem that withstands needed testing time-frame to consider those boards properly tested by their known testers. I can put it back to normal (open an issue) but I now require board donations or more reactiveness from those boards flapping between testing and untested in the past. If you know other board owners with external programmers, now would be a good time to tag them in the issue you will open to ask for that board to be switched back to tested. Don't feel alone, the same process will apply to any current board currently marked as untested. For the protection of users who don't have an external programmer and to stop wasting my time doing this ping pong game for what is known to currently be one board owner, which is not enough for my current "maintainer" pay grade (on donations). I'm/was under grant for some pr approved new features/improvements. But maintaining Heads is not free as in free beer. Merry Christmas! |
|
@natterangell happy new year #1567 |
As it was discussed under #1403 #1250 #1461, this PR:
intel_iommu=igfx_offstatement (CONFIG_BOOT_KERNEL_REMOVE="intel_iommu=on intel_iommu=igfx_off) that would be pushed by QubesOS since now unneeded for intel_igfx (passed to efifb and no workaround are needed as of now. But keep in mind that console appears there when i915drm kicks in on dom0. It is unknown what is missing there so that dom0 kernel can handle efifb passed by kexec call, but console appears under 6 seconds under x230 so that's good enough)CONFIG_LINUX_COMMAND_LINE="intel_iommu=igfx_off"which is also not needed anymoreCONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_DEFAULT_ON=yin linux kernel configs that didn't have it (x230)ns50 v2.3 boots to blank screen Nitrokey/heads#28
with proper branding (Heads here by default from Makefile and no board override)
Tested on x230-maximized:
@marmarek if you have any pointers or info on the last screenshot? Booting into installer from Heads after kexec call still takes a really long while though, like 20 seconds after kernel is started following plymouth first output on installer console.