Framework is great, but coreboot would really be the icing on the cake for me. I would even be in on a croudfunding or something.
If Framework isn’t interested in coreboot they should issue a statement publicly. Giving away a couple of laptops without JTAG option is not enough. That’s a recipe for failure and they probably know it.
Edit: not true, see next comment
good comment with the exception of this part. Jtag should actually work and it was Intel Bootguard that was not turned on. on our retail units its (per Intel instructions?) turned on and meaning firmware images should be signed by FW. leading me also to conclude, even if we get coreboot, it be signed by FW. I dont know how much freedom the chromebook version has, hopefully a dev mode switch that allows us to flash our own payloads
EDIT, on the coreboot issue tracker (link in first post), someone mentions FW could and would maybe creating a signed shim, so our own coreboot could run. Id love to see this shim to be made anyway even if no coreboot has been made yet for… well when a few years maybe have past? seeing 11th gen still being sold refurbished, maybe 2 years?
It’s been 2 years since this post started and the issue ticket in coreboot git tracker is closed.
and in that post they said:
There are a number of professional consulting groups that do coreboot ports. If framework is actually interested in getting a port done, might I suggest that these might be a better way to go about getting a port done?
https://www.coreboot.org/consulting.htm
Did framework actually went and asked for consulting?
I’ve read in this post that they give some laptops to unknown coreboot developers and that’s about it.
Is there any new updates?
Are they actually interested in doing it?
My guess is that it is one of the WIP projects but probably not a priority, considering you have more request for 16", dGPUs, AMD CPUs and matte screens than coreboot.
So all we can do is wait, unless someone wishes to start their own project to fund/crowdfund coreboot themselves.
One of them is known, if you read the ticket.
Also all 3 of them ended up being bricked. as in, reflashing the stock bios dint work I asume. maybe the embedded controller or fuses did some magic (smoke). anyway, where send back and the ticket being closed is sad from coreboots side.
Yes, I hope framework would try again, or help get the chromebook version “backported” if possible.
Honestly, I’m curious as to why it has taken this long. What exactly are the board level differences between DIY and Chromebook on 12th gen? There can’t be that many.
Debugging, certification, user support, etc. Framework’s a tiny company. System76’s firmware caused two of my batteries to, um, expand because they lacked good charging controls. There are many aspects.
I like coreboot on my Lemur Pro, but it definitely had problems until relatively recently. The construction quality (Clevo) is why I won’t be going that route again.
Now a partnership between the two… System76 could have value-add appearance, modules, support, etc. But that requires investors to agree. I’m not going to hold my breath.
I am like 90% sure battery charging/discharging is handled by the ec which is already open source on the framework.
You would be correct.
Those problems exist whether the BIOS solution is proprietary or FOSS. Users will need support regardless. The chosen solution must be tested and working regardless. I recognize that FW is a smaller company, but when most of the work has presumably already been done with the Chromebook variant, it begs the question why is has not been backported when FW has already expressed they would be interested in doing so. No explanation has been given as to why the delay. It’s not that I am not a patient person or that I’m not understanding of time/money constraints but I have been given little to no information regarding any such constraints. FW seems much more keen to focus on hardware over software/firmware given the last keynote they gave. Not a single min was given to software or firmware improvements, not a mention of even a roadmap of what FW would like to see improved in firmware or software. I like the company and will continue to support them but I’m not going to hand-wave away everything. Plenty of that goes on anyways regarding other issues.
Nor any progress indicator / communication, or roadmap / timeline commitment. I’m sure there are tones to consider…but we’re / the community is pretty much in the dark.
I think they’re waiting for all 11th gen units to have their warranty expired before releasing Coreboot to avoid covering bricked boards. That would make sense…at your own risk essentially.
Okay let me theorize for a second.
We have some people asking for Coreboot, Firmware updates and alike.
And then we have basically everyone asking for new hardware (AMD, matte display) and hardware fixes (hinges).
It only makes sense to give people what they want most first,- which they now did.
How is it surprising that they didn’t roll out Firmware upgrades (or even Coreboot) at the same time?
I imagine now that the 13th gen and AMD is launched and the Laptop 16 is coming, they can start to look at the Software-side of things.
@Anachron It isn’t really surprising indeed and the new generation looks pretty good !
It would be nice if Framework at least released a statement regarding coreboot though.
@Anachron It isn’t the fact that Coreboot and other firmware fixes weren’t given the same amount of time as hardware releases in the keynote. Software isn’t sexy like hardware is. What is surprising is that nothing was said at all, not in the keynote and not in the blog post. Not even a comment on a possible timeframe or even that the FW team was still interested in porting the boards to Coreboot. Nothing. This is consistent with how little interaction we see from the FW team on the beta BIOS threads but is not remotely encouraging or desirable behavior. Without good firmware and good firmware support, what I own would be a brick. Coreboot is viewed by most in this thread as essential to keeping these boards in service long after FW could reasonably profit off of them. Coreboot is part and parcel of Framework’s stated mission and the lack of communication does not inspire confidence. That is what bothers me and I assume others.
I can totally agree here.
Another total agreement.
Honestly, I believe it’s just as the “sudden launch” of the latest products.
They’re radio silent about what’s going on, especially right before the launch/release and then put the cat out of the sack.
We have 3 coreboot developers who got the unsecured Framework laptop and one failed. So for me that sounds like the other 2 could possibly be already at work making this happen, which is why Framework isn’t too energentic to send new ones out.
Maybe we all like to have “progress reports” and “status updates” and estimated time frames for whatever we want to see at Framework happen.
But truth is, we don’t, that’s just not how Framework works/operates. Let’s hope for the best and be a bit patient, Framework is rapidly growing and so is their backlog of things they want to do.
but is it alive, dead or indeterminate? 
Yet no communication from the devs? Those devs are independent and I imagine they want to take credit for their hard work or even solicit some funding from the rest of us to sponsor their work. This does not come across as a “no news is good news” type vibe.
This is exactly my worry…the backlog only grows and projects/initiatives will end up on the cutting room floor. I’ll be selfish and wish my personal desires don’t end up there.
Hey Guys, this news might be the thing to keep an eye on :
If all of this is true, coreboot, at least on the new AMD board, can be a reality soon.
If there is going to be a bounty or crowdfunding, I will donate 100$ to it. I’m in interested in support for heads on 12th gen but I can deal with it if I have access to a coreboot port.