How the progress in coreboot for Framework AMD?
3 Likes
Looks like the issue in coreboot was closed?
Ah, wait, looks like only the Chromebook is supported.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/62569
3 Likes
The machine indicated in that patch series is definitely not the Framework Chromebook!
Sorry, that was referencing the prior link
I am hardly a fanboy of amd like some are, but this being said, I learned from some people looking at the platform security processor that it might not be a remote backdoor after all. I also learned that supposedly, amd is being increasingly worked on for corebooting purposes. I wonder if coreboot on framework could end up happening via amd instead of intel. Just a thought!
I donāt really care about either x86 version much, it would be nice to have open source alternatives take over the market like Libre-Soc best case, microwatt next best or Risc-V. But yeah thatās a while away for now I think.
Might be possible via amd, intel though? Not likely for the time beingā¦
1 Like
I suggest offering modules or, as a default choice, the possibility of choosing whether or not the PC is equipped with AMD PSP, INTEL IMEā¦
In addition, Dasharo/Coreboot could be installed by default. When in doubt, Iāll email support with the idea, as Iām sure Iām not the only one seduced by the idea of having a privacy-friendly PC that can be completely disassembled.
Best regards,
Evariste LD
2 Likes
Please keep all Coreboot discussion to the existing Coreboot thread.
Please do not reach out to Support for this. Framework is already very aware of this feature request.
1 Like
Very well, no problem!
(Iām sure thereās a problem on my side - I tried to search for existing threads on this subject but couldnāt find anything).
1 Like
Framework 16 is now shipping :3
1 Like
7 Likes
Hey,
The link for the slides seems dead. Although, I found the video of the Fosdem talk with the title of your talk here : https://video.fosdem.org/2024/aw1126/fosdem-2024-2936-open-source-firmware-status-on-amd-platforms-2024-5th-edition.mp4
The slides are here : https://fosdem.org/2024/events/attachments/fosdem-2024-2936-open-source-firmware-status-on-amd-platforms-2024-5th-edition/slides/22753/Open_Source_Firmware_status_on_AMD_platforms_20_aQbCpfQ.pdf
3 Likes
Still curious how close the chromebook version has progressed in being āpure corebootedā
As in, ungoogled coreboot. 
1 Like
I was under the impression that that happened pretty much as soon as it was released. Itās listed as a fully-supported device at https://mrchromebox.tech, after all.
2 Likes
Google develops their coreboot support upstream: thereās no secret sauce. Just compile it.
Hmmā¦ but then how does google prevent users from leaving chromeos on many chrome devices?
I am kind of confused.
There are usually restrictions if I recall correctly in escaping chromebooks. Or am I wrong?
But anywho, you are saying google supports coreboot devices and puts it on the official coreboot website? Thatās intresting if true.
I am not a chromebook expert btw. Is it possible to run fully free software distros on chromebooks then without blobs?
Also, wondering what the difference is between chromebook intel and framework intel regarding linux support. Too many questions, I know
Iām not especially familiar with Chromebook ecosystem, but similar things happen in adjacent market segments like phones and tablets:
-
Virtually all modern SoCs and CPUs feature some form of āsecure bootā. This is a binary blob that is etched into chip ROM (so it physically resides on the chip). This is the first bit of code that will execute on that system. From there, it will only load further firmware that has been signed by a trusted key. The trusted keypairs are literally burned into the chip, either at fabrication time, or in the factory. For ARM this is TEE. Intel has SGX, and so on.
-
Even if youāve liberated a device to the point where the early parts of the system are running open firmware, you still have a massive long tail of hardware blocks that need complementary software to run.
For example, Qualcomm SoCs from circa 2015 have pretty good mainline Linux support nowadays: Qualcomm Snapdragon 410/412 (MSM8916) - postmarketOS. I have a Samsung Galaxy A5 running Linux 6.6 via postmarketOS. Even still, I donāt have hardware video decoding support on this device, because even though some incredible folks have reverse engineered the Adreno GPU (Freedreno), the āVenusā hardware video decoder continues to be a black box.
You see a similar issue with operating systems like LineageOS. Sure itās running a lot more open source and free software, but if you peek behind the curtains youāll see that most of the supported devices still need to ship with a bunch of opaque binary blobs to support various hardware IP blocks on the SoC (or attached to it on the logic board).
So even if you can boot a particular Chromebook model with a (near?) fully free and open source firmware, you might only be able to expect the basic CPU + MMU + serial port to be available 
You can see this in effect even in the coreboot ecosystem, btw. This issue is why libreboot exists.
2 Likes
MrChromebox.tech and especially MrChromebox.tech shows it can relax restrictions in Verified Boot Mode. and you can then in most cases install Linux or even custom firmware (like mrchromebox
anyway, Supported Devices and Platforms | Chrultrabook Docs shows the framework laptop being supported, even with UEFI, windows and linux. sad I couldnt get a chromebook here in the netherlands.
1 Like
Is it possible then for libreboot to be ported to chromebook framework laptop?
I speak of the current libreboot btw, not the one that dealt with very old hardware only.
I would not bother porting AMD to coreboot for framework laptop, unless its 4000s ryzen.
In 2022, pluton a microsoft backdoor was put into amd processors. I believe it happened after the 5000 series of ryzen.
I checked and yeah, 6000 ryzen or newer have pluton and I wouldnāt trust that trash to save my life.
1 Like