do this with board.cfg option: crossgcc_ada="n" add this environmental variable when building crossgcc, if crossgcc_ada="n": BUILD_LANGUAGES=c This avoids building the GNAT/Ada compiler in GCC. Coreboot 4.11 is only used for some AGESA boards that don't need Ada (their video init is the old style, written in C, it's not libgfxinit) Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
delete all blobs. TODO: actually deblob coreboot/uboot when downloading. i'll that in a little while, in an upcoming commit. yes. purge it all, in fsf style. censor what the fsf doesn't like. so that they can feel good about having less, because ideological purity is better than helping more people use coreboot, yes? Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
This error was observed, in the coreboot build system:
In file included from src/lib/version.c:4:
build/build.h:10:32: error: 'libreboot' undeclared here (not in a function)
10 | #define COREBOOT_MAJOR_VERSION libreboot-20230625
| ^~~~~~~~~
src/lib/version.c:35:46: note: in expansion of macro 'COREBOOT_MAJOR_VERSION'
35 | const unsigned int coreboot_major_revision = COREBOOT_MAJOR_VERSION;
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This happened on the 20230625 *release archive*, when a user tried to
build for W541 MRC on an Arch Linux container.
This change fixes the error. I never got the error on my end when
build testing the release archives, but this will prevent the error.
Fix it by only inserting libreboot version string YYYYMMDD representing
the Libreboot version. (libreboot uses ISO dates as version numbers)
Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
I keep getting random linker issues when running: ./build boot roms all I think the issue lies somewhere in here, from when I did that massive audit. So I'm undoing the audit which mostly re-factored the code style here. These changes are being backported: f338697b build/boot/roms: Support removing microcode 941fbcb run coreboot utils from own directory f256ce98 build/boot/roms: say board name on stderr I removed this change: 6d6bd5ee (the script now uses dedicated utils directory) additionally: cbutils is built much earlier on in the script, first thing after initialising variables the other changes not backported are all code style changes, and I believe these are responsible. if no other fixes occur to this fire before the next libreboot release, then my hunch was right. Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
That way, I can more easily debug build issues with specific boards, e.g. ./build boot roms all 2>lbmk.err.log Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
don't clean it, distclean it Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
this means coreboot can now be distcleaned safely, before and after each build of a rom image Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
From now on, the following rules are available for all mainboards, in resources/coreboot/boardname/board.cfg: * blobs_required="n" or "y" * microcode_required="n" or "y" The blobs setting, if set to "n", simply renames filename.rom to filename_noblobs.rom. The microcode setting, if set to "n", copies the ROM (with or without _noblobs) to filename_nomicrocode.rom (if blobs="n", it would be filename_noblobs_nomicrocode.rom). Where "nomicrocode" is set, ROMs with microcode will still be provided by lbmk and in relesase, but ROMs will also be provided alongside it that lacks any microcode updates. If the *original* ROM already lacks microcode updates, then the original ROM will be *renamed* to include "nomicrocode" in the name. This is done on images for ARM platforms, for instance, where microcode is never used whatsoever. Example filenames now generated: seabios_e6400_4mb_libgfxinit_corebootfb_noblobs_nomicrocode.rom seabios_e6400_4mb_libgfxinit_corebootfb_noblobs.rom seabios_withgrub_hp8300usdt_16mb_libgfxinit_corebootfb_colemak_nomicrocode.rom seabios_withgrub_hp8300usdt_16mb_libgfxinit_corebootfb_colemak.rom uboot_payload_gru_kevin_libgfxinit_corebootfb_noblobs_nomicrocode.rom A vocal minority of people were not happy with some of the changes made in Libreboot last year, including on existing supported hardware from before those changes were made. I did this before the last release, out of respect: https://libreboot.org/news/gm45microcode.html (re-add mitigations for no-microcode setup on GM45) This new change is done as an further, extended courtesy. Tested and works fine. (testing using cbfstool-print) Actual Libreboot policy about binary blobs is nuanced. See: https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html (reduction policy) and: https://libreboot.org/freedom-status.html (implementation) Well, the status page talks about descriptor vs non-descriptor on Intel platforms, and where me_cleaner is used (on platforms that need Intel ME firmware), it regards the descriptored setups to be blob-free if coreboot does not require binary blobs. In this paradigm, microcode updates are not considered to be binary blobs, because they aren't technically software, they're more like config files that just turn certain features on or off within the CPU. However, for lbmk purposes, "noblobs" means that, after the ROM is fully ready to flash on the chip, there will be no blobs in it (except microcode). So for example, an X200 that does not require ME firmware is considered blob-free under this paradigm, even though Libreboot policy regards X230 as equally libre when me_cleaner is used; in this setup, ROMs will not contain "blobfree" in the filename, for X230 (as one example). Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
This reverts commit a4ea2867319471d9fe7d4ee540881e0286b4d3cf. The licensing audit has been abandoned. I will not be re-licensing in bulk to MIT. I can still use MIT license on new works, e.g. utilities, but there's really no pressing need to re-license lbmk. It's just shell scripts, and most of what it interacts with (coreboot, grub, seabios) is GPL anyway. So who cares? Ferass's patch was removed due to refusal to re-license, but the decision to re-license has been canceled. I'm now aiming for a quick stable release.