@Adrian_Joachim Much of it’s functionality can be inferred and since Purism has been working extensively to reverse-engineer the FSP (or was at least) they should have a working knowledge of the ME revision present in 10th gen chips.
2 Likes
Sleep already doesn’t work on my qubes os install so that is not an issue.
2 Likes
@prepaidpyramid and given that the default sleep mode is S2Idle and not S3, it isn’t exactly like sleep would be non-functional. I already don’t use S3 so not being able to use it permanently but gaining a disabled Intel ME is an absolute win for me. I’m willing to accept trade-offs to gain these objectives. Others might not so I can understand not having a disabled ME from the factory but a script/executable that is sanctioned by support for those interested would be ideal.
2 Likes
To be able to backport it to current framework boards would be important too, I’d love to see open-firmware being utilised!
2 Likes
I’m starting to be disappointed with Framework.
I was a very early adopter two years ago in one of the first batches hoping there would be more effort put in to support coreboot on their Intel (and now AMD in the future) machines. As of now and for the near future it seems the only systems that support coreboot is the Framework Chromebook.
As much as I love the mission of Framework with repair-ability, I’m very disappointed more effort has not been put into freeing up the firmware. While the new AMD and 16-inch offerings are compelling and attractive, I’m not sure if I’ll pull the trigger on anything else Framework until they actually work to make supporting coreboot a reality.
6 Likes
OK so we should not see any time soon Coreboot on the Ryzen Laptop unless Framework answers to the OpenSIL call (see the end of the video).
So, 2026 should bring support to any Amd hardware (7040 serie is supposed to be supported) but not sure about older hardware. Still it’s quite along road and things can change…
8 Likes
Damn this is encouraging. Coreboot support by default would be the shit and we might even get it a bit earlier since the 7040 platform seems to be at least one they may be doing a bit earlier for chromebooks and stuff but helll 2026 isn’t that bad either.
1 Like
As this keeps popping up even after multiple responses, let this be the “official” response so we can put this to bed, at least for now.
It is not that Framework “does not care” about Coreboot, it is that we have a very long list of priorities for a very small team (we are less than 50 globally and have existed for less than 3 years) and while being able to support Coreboot would be fantastic, it is just not a priority for Framework right now given the sheer number of initiatives that we have to launch now and in the immediate future. We pivot from one NPI (New Product Introduction) to the next, back to back, and have since our first product launch. Our firmware/BIOS team is small and is supplemented by an outside 3rd Party partner. The consistent, “well, just hire more people then” is unfortunate as those in the know understand that’s not how it works, especially for a small, private company trying to exist in a very mature market segment. While tech in general is shrinking, layoffs are in the news constantly, and global economies are getting hit hard, we’re still here, releasing new products, and working hard to support everything we’ve already launched.
If and when we decide to add Coreboot to the docket of active projects, we’ll let the Community know, but if you want Framework to continue to exist, and you believe in our mission, we’ll have to continue to ask for your patience. If not having Coreboot is a blocker for you, personally, to join the Framework Family, we do hope that we can earn your business in the future.
43 Likes
@TheTwistgibber I appreciate the official response, but it’s not really an answer.
Framework has received $27 million in investor money and has not been willing to add coreboot to it’s products (minus the Chromebook offering) while small scrappy companies (Purism, StarLabs, etc) are able to do so (my understanding is StarLabs has only 3 people and they’re running in the red).
Framework has shown it can have coreboot with the Chromebook it’s put out, there isn’t an excuse that the remaining offerings can’t have the same when smaller less funded companies are doing what Framework is and has not been willing to do.
If Framework really wants to support open-hardware and repairability it needs to put it’s money where it’s mouth is and dedicate more resources to opening up the firmware rather than adding more hardware options. I get software isn’t as sexy as hardware, but if Framework really wants to support right-to-repair and reducing e-waste open firmware is a MUST
4 Likes
We’re sorry that you are not able to accept the answer provided, but alas, this is where we stand on this topic.
15 Likes
Just adding to this, we’re continuing to enable Coreboot developers in the community to progress on work on Framework Laptops. We’ve seen good efforts around Windows on the Framework Laptop Chromebook Edition by CoolStar for example: Windows Install Helper
We’ve also sent unfused Mainboards out to a handful of Coreboot developers to enable development of a shim loader. Any Coreboot developers interested in getting involved in these efforts should reach out to us, and we’re happy to provide additional hardware.
32 Likes
I’m sorry but how is this not exactly what Framework has been doing since day 1? And continues to expand on each day.
They just can’t address everything at the same time.
Purism, StarLabs are nice but I haven’t seen them do what Framework has with repairability, upgradeability, reuseability. Also Framework does need to appeal to more than just niche crowds, like coreboot users tbh, if they want to really succeed. Going first for the sexy hardware swapablility, customization & repairability is the right call imho. Build up the company. Sales, a good customer base, loyal following, word-of-mouth, income. Need that to be able to accomplish more. And having investor money also means having investors expecting to see a timely return.
I have no doubt coreboot will come, just not at this very moment. I too want coreboot. And I don’t think the Framework vision would even be truly complete without it.
15 Likes
And @TheTwistgibber entire post
Thank you folks so much for these informative answers. And thanks for sending those 3 unfused mainboards. (hope they are or could be fixed and send again?) Im supporting Framework because I love how you stand for repair-ability and nice specs and looks. Love the module idea aswell, and the open source (and some hardware aswell) with these big name cpu names. wishing I was more skilled in porting coreboot (trying), and kinda have an idea how tricky it is to make this work, hope these comments help feel supported aswell (amoung those less positive comments 
)
So much awesome ideas and projects get started thanks to Framework, I hope we can grow together to a sustainable and repairable world, both hardware and in software.
5 Likes
Framework is a small scrappy startup and I don’t see that changing in the immediate future. Given that you pointed out that Framework is constantly pivoting from NPI to NPI (and will for the foreseeable future) Coreboot support is almost assuredly DOA. I get it, Framework can’t profit off of Coreboot like it can off a NPI but I said it before and @djinntsu reiterated it
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Reduce is first on that list for a reason. It is unreasonable to expect Framework to pay Insyde to develop BIOS patches for every release until the heat-death of the universe but opening up the would at the very least create the potential for continued support past the point where Framework EOL’s 11th and successive generations. I’m glad to have an official response even if I am more than disappointed in the response. Now that we the community know where you guys stand on official Coreboot porting efforts, we can pivot to new questions, namely “If a community effort leads to a Coreboot port, will users utilizing said port still receive warranty and support?”.
There was a user in this thread somewhere employed by a company that does Coreboot ports. I say a Kickstarter/Indiegogo be created with the intention of contracting the port out to their company. $15K was the amount quoted in general, I’ll be in contact with them to get more details on that and see what their interest would be in such a project.
EDIT: Dasharo (the company mentioned previously) can be contracted in the same way as Insyde to dev your BIOS and provide support in the same way. Why has this option not been explored? Framework does not need to on board any other hires and it keeps the same category of costs as contracting out to Insyde. If we the community pay for a port to Dasharo, will Framework commit or at least consider dropping Insyde in favor of Dasharo?
EDIT 2: Alright, so a quick glance at how Dasharo makes money gives me 2 conclusions.
- They charge based upon how many laptops will be sold with their firmware (assuming it comes from the factory with it) but the implication is that this is standard practice.
- Derived from conclusion 1, a community based fundraiser will be the more expensive path without a commitment from Framework to switch to Dasharo as Dasharo understandably wants the support contract more than they want the porting contract.
- As expressed in EDIT 1, there is a path forward for Framework that allows them to satisfy the community desire for Coreboot with necessitating the hiring of more staff. It would be preferable to have the Coreboot stuff done in-house for logistical reasons but Dasharo would be a huge step forward and would signal some goodwill here.
8 Likes
Those of you who are passionate about coreboot should realize that it is very likely that most of the people in the market for a Framework don’t care about coreboot. Just because it’s so important to you doesn’t mean that it’s a done deal that it’s on the “must have” list. Of =course= FW has to prioritze it’s essential resources and I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from being passionate about how important it is — just try not to represent it as a god-given truth. It’s =your= priorities and you can certainly take the position that you won’t support the company unless they meet your needs – but please don’t represent the rest of us.
11 Likes
That is not a good argument. Most people don’t care about data privacy or encryption but that does not equate to those same consumers not benefiting from data privacy or encryption.
Except it is. Open Firmware is part and parcel of the stated mission. Framework is a hardware company, they are not a software company and it is unlikely they can ever monetize Coreboot in any significant fashion. Open Firmware serves as a vehicle for at least the potential for reductions in e-waste as hardware that is abandoned by Framework can still get security patches from Coreboot and be serviceable. While yes, I badly want Coreboot and would want it regardless, I wouldn’t push for this if I was typing on an HP or Dell. Coreboot is part of Framework’s mission and the statement given by @TheTwistgibber is a weak response that kicks the can down the road without giving any qualifications as to when Coreboot support would be considered viable. Given that Framework is a hardware company, it’ll never have the same priority that new hardware launches have, that’s just a fact. It is up to us, the community, to push for these things to demonstrate how important this is to all of us, even the ones who may never directly attribute the benefit they receive, to Framework.
3 Likes
Let’s please not have this discussion of priority based on OS-choice. It’s not constructive and is not something we condone.
9 Likes
That’s not the way I intended it. It has little to do with OS per se and more to do with the kind of people that run with that crowd. Someone who uses a FOSS OS like BSD or Linux is more likely to care about R2R than someone who does not. That isn’t to say that Windows or MacOS users can’t or don’t it’s just less likely. Granted that’s my opinion and purely based on anecdotal evidence but I think most would agree.
I’m not asking that Linux users be elevated above all. That would be silly, especially since yes, we are not the largest market segment. But we are among the most active segment on this forum and I for one think Framework is doing good in this market segment. I’ve seen posts asking for the moon or acting ridiculously purist about FOSS. This is not about that. I want things that not only benefit Linux or BSD but also Windows users or any user of this device. Coreboot does that, it’s benefits are not restricted to any particular user or use case.
3 Likes
@GhostLegion just please remember that no one Community member represents an entire population of individuals. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but let’s not speak for others when voicing personal opinions. Words do matter.
As we’ve already shared our stance on this topic, and Nirav has even chimed in, let’s keep this thread focused on Coreboot functionality, and potential future implementation, not on attempting to debate Framework’s stance and current status. If this thread becomes toxic, it will be shut down.
Thanks.
8 Likes
@TheTwistgibber Framework’s stance is so vague as to be meaningless. It will be considered in the future? When? There are no qualifications with that statement so it can’t be binding in any meaningful way. The statement is left open and given the emphasis in your statement regarding priority of NPI, I see nothing pushing Framework to adopt Coreboot. It can’t be monetized in the same way as a NPI and without significant pushback from the community, I see no impetus to drive adoption. I don’t see how this thread can discuss Coreboot functionality without also discussing Framework’s stance since there currently is no functionality. I’m not trying to be toxic here, I want to explore what options are available for Framework to proceed with potential Coreboot support in a sane manner. Since I don’t expect Framework to hire multitudes of devs to create a Coreboot port.
I’ll edit my above comments to better reflect this. My apologies.
2 Likes