@Usernames Not at all, I could edit it now. But I won’t because I’m not sure I should.
1 Like
Well I thought of that but then all the content would be a bit inconsistent hence I started a new topic for people who search and of course for anyone wanting post such updates would have a clear run on the topic of being a full release.
I’m sure you must have seen it.
https://community.frame.work/t/11th-gen-intel-core-bios-3-17-6th-april-2023/29332
@GhostLegion maybe this one could be closed and/or redirected ?
@amoun Not a mod lol, I can’t close topics anymore than you can. People with “Regular” status can edit titles and change classification but that’s about it. That and when we flag posts, the post gets instantly hidden instead of requiring multiple flags.
1 Like
Yes, I have seen your thread. What is the “inconsistent” content?
I would prefer to continue to use this thread. Because it’s about BIOS 3.17. It’s still the same binary file. The beta/non-beta is just the label to describe the status.
1 Like
True. Given the BIOS seems to be the same.
I’ve just contacted the Mods to see what they have to say 
Still as the Beta does exist it seems reasonable for the topic to exist.
In my memory, the BIOS 3.10 thread’s title was the beta first, then renamed for the official release. So, I thought we could do this way for the BIOS 3.17 thread too.
We have received official confirmation that 3.17 has been removed from beta and marked as a full release. This thread has been updated accordingly.
The second thread about this release has been merged into this one to keep information together.
4 Likes
Thanks to @MikeBridge for directions to the news on the Beta status of the 3.17 BIOS
OK I just installed the 3.17 over the 3.17 Beta
then
- Reset Battery Charge Limit and
- Power Button Brightness
Grub 2 wasn’t effected, so all seems fine.
UPDATE
I’ve just done a binary comparison between the Beta and Full release and apparently there is not a single byte of difference.
7 Likes
I’m on 3.17 beta, only Fedora installed on this machine. fwupdmgr upgrade doesn’t pick any BIOS updates up. It did pick up the dbx database update though.
Is this BIOS update live on lvfs yet?
Is it necessary to run the update if I’m already using 3.17 beta?
Probably not
@New_Customer
EDIT: I’ve just done a binary comparison between the Beta and Full release and apparently there is not a single byte of difference. See first post
2 Likes
I think Framework is still only publishing its firmware updates on the lvfs-testing channel, so while they have removed the beta label from 3.17, you still need to enable lvfs-testing as a remote for fwupd to pick it up (so for the update procedure there is absolutely no difference between beta and non-beta). See
https://fwupd.org/lvfs/devices/work.frame.Laptop.TGL.BIOS.firmware
which also shows that the “beta” label removal did nothing on LVFS. This may be because LVFS updates (as the other ones!) can still ruin boot settings, so they may want to avoid it running fully automatically: it might bring systems to a state that need manual intervention without the user having received warning that this might happen.
The change from Beta to Release, if numeric version didn’t change, means there’s no code difference, and is only a status promotion.
That’s to say: No need for a re-flash if you’re already on 3.17…beta or not.
(Imagine the nightmere if there were multiple 3.17 with code differences)
1 Like
I’ve just done a binary comparison between the Beta and Full release and apparently there is not a single byte of difference.
Okay, thanks!
1 Like
Yeah, I should have been explicit about this, I did enable lvfs-testing and updated it with latest metadata. Anyway, seems like this is just a “relabeling” of the previously-beta BIOS.
Would be nice to see an official announcement.
FWIW already looking forward to the next release, for the USB port retimer fixes that have been mentioned around the forum.
Edit: Thanks for that lvfs history link @Nils. I somehow forgot to look “at the source”.
Something doesn’t add up here, why was it beta so 4 months then?
We need some official comment I think or are we going to continue to have radio silence on this one…
Maybe they thought no one really cared and they had ‘better’ things to do, but yes some sort of confirmation or notification would have been ‘considerate’, rather that relying on a user to find it.
2 Likes
Just updated my DIY i5-1135G7 from 3.10->3.17 via the windows installer. Plugging a mouse adapter into the USB A port after first boot caused a USB Power error. Now windows is still throwing USB power errors even after all modules removed and windows rebooted, running on battery.
I can’t say for sure it was the BIOS update, but the timing sure is suspicious. 
I would definitely reach out to support about this!