summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/resources/scripts/build/boot/roms_helper
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2023-07-09coreboot: AMD Fam10/15: don't build GCC-GNATLeah Rowe
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>
2023-07-08remove blobutil and boards/utils needing/for blobsLeah Rowe
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>
2023-07-08build/boot/roms: fix coreboot-version in releasesLeah Rowe
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>
2023-06-25build/roms_helper: reset d521fca7, backport fixesLeah Rowe
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>
2023-06-25build/boot/roms: say board name on stderrLeah Rowe
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>
2023-06-24build/roms: distclean coreboot before each buildLeah Rowe
don't clean it, distclean it Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
2023-06-24run coreboot utils from own directoryLeah Rowe
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>
2023-06-20build/boot/roms_helper nicer indent on switch loopLeah Rowe
Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
2023-06-19build/boot/roms: Support removing microcodeLeah Rowe
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>
2023-06-13Revert "Remove most of Ferass's lbmk contributions"Leah Rowe
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.
2023-05-27Remove most of Ferass's lbmk contributionsLeah Rowe
The primary purpose of my intense auditing has been to improve lbmk's coding style and fix bugs but there is a secondary purpose: know precisely who owns what, because I want to re-license as much as possible of lbmk under *MIT*, instead of the current GNU licensing. MIT is vastly superior, because it grants *actual* freedom to the user, permits *sublicensing* and it is vastly more compatible with other GPL combinations; for example, MIT license is compatible with GPL2-only whereas lbmk's current mix of GPLv3-or-later and GPLv3-only is legally incompatible with GPLv2-only. Re-licensing under MIT will most likely result in more contributions to Libreboot's build system in the future, especially as it will attract a lot more commercial interest. Contrary to the popular arguments, copyleft is a liability to the free software movement and results in less code being written; in practise, permissively licensed code gets more public contributions, including from commercial entities, even if companies can theoretically make something proprietary out of it (in practise, anyone inclined can just use the upstream and proprietary forks almost always die). Copyleft propaganda is fundamentally flawed. See: <https://unixsheikh.com/articles/the-problems-with-the-gpl.html> Anyway, I've been doing a combination of: * Seeking permission from other copyright holders, for re-licensing * Deleting, or moving, other contributions; for example, splitting certain contributions into separate files so that originally modified files become unencumbered. This latter solution is a result of *code cleanup* arising from the audit. For Ferass's contributions, I opted to seek *permission*, and permission was denied. In full compliance with this legal imperative, I'm acting accordingly; this commit removes all of Ferass's changes that converted lbmk to posix shell scripts, thus removing his copyright on the affected files, bypassing his authority entirely. Therefore, lbmk is largely now bash-dependent. In practise, nobody is going to use anything other than a GNU system to build Libreboot, because many projects that Libreboot makes use of rely heavily on GNU; for example, coreboot's build system makes heavy use of GNU-specific extensions in *GNU Make*, and likely contains many bashisms. Of course, Libreboot also compiles GNU GRUB. I would much rather have MIT-licensed Bash scripts than GPL-licensed posix SCL scripts. This reverts the changes from Ferass El Hafidi, for the following commits, with some exceptions: * 7f5dfebf7d37c56d9c7993aaa17c59070cb5aec9 * f787044642236917c9c4dbcaa48a6b0648097db0 Exception: download/mrc not reverted, because that was already a fork of an existing script under coreboot's build system, and their script was GPLv2. i cannot/will not re-license this file (ergo, 7f5dfebf7d37c56d9c7993aaa17c59070cb5aec9 change remains intact, on this file) resources/scripts/build/boot/roms_helper, these changes have been kept: * 7e6691e9 - Add ARMv7 and AArch64 support * dec2d720 - add myself in the build/roms_helper script (added 2021 copyright for the change below) * b7405656 - Workaround for grub's slow boot ^ these changes will be re-factored, splitting them out of the file into a new file. This will be done in a future lbmk revision. (in some cases, it makes sense to keep a change but split it, allowing the main file to be re-licensed without the change in it) This is part of a much larger series of licensing audits. It's likely that lbmk will be posix-compliant (in its shell scripts) again some day, because I'm planning to rewrite most of these scripts (the ones modified in this patch), and many of them (e.g. individual download scripts) are subject to future deletion in a planned overhaul of the download logic for third party projects. In addition: these changes are being kept (no attempt to re-license them will be made): * cff081c6 - Fix grub's slow boot (1 year, 5 months ago) <Vitali64> * 4c851889 - Add macbook*1 16mb configs (1 year, 6 months ago) <Vitali64> Ferass's work that remains will be split into dedicated files containing them, where feasible. In the case of grub.cfg (for GNU GRUB), I don't care because it's a script for an engine (GRUB shell) that's under GPL anyway, so who really cares about MIT license. Signed-off-by: Leah Rowe <leah@libreboot.org>
2023-05-13build/build/roms: simplify mkCoreboot() argumentsLeah Rowe
2023-05-13build/boot/roms: don't use subshells frivilouslyLeah Rowe
use make -BC instead of cd
2023-05-13build/boot/roms: remove errant debug lineLeah Rowe
i added this in the last revision it was put there to debug something that i fixed before pushing
2023-05-13build/boot/roms: simplify build_rom_images()Leah Rowe
2023-05-13build/boot/roms: use fast dd command for ich9m ifdLeah Rowe
bs 12k and count 1, rather than bs 1 and count 12k
2023-05-13build/boot/roms: don't run ich9gen twiceLeah Rowe
2023-05-13build/boot/roms: simplify moverom()Leah Rowe
2023-05-13build/boot/roms: remove unused legacy codeLeah Rowe
this cuttype is no longer used lbmk creates truncated me setups now, on ifd platforms
2023-05-13build/boot/roms: reduced code indentationLeah Rowe
2023-05-12build/boot/roms: split main() to topdown functionsLeah Rowe
the logic can now more or less be read chronologically
2023-05-12build/roms_helper: move logic into main()Leah Rowe
logic will be split from main into smaller functions, in follow-up commits
2023-05-10build/boot/roms_helper: further cleanupLeah Rowe
consolidated some for loops removed errant code
2023-05-10build/roms: general code style cleanupLeah Rowe
2023-05-10build/roms: fix faulty keymap list expansionLeah Rowe
2023-05-10build/boot/roms*: RFC 2646 complianceLeah Rowe
No more than 80 characters per line.
2023-05-09seabios: do normal config, disable oprom in vgaromLeah Rowe
previously, "normal" initmode relied on the vgarom-based seabios config, which enables option roms, but then lbmk would insert pci-optionrom-exec 0 for vgarom, and 2 for normal in libreboot, coreboot roms with "vgarom" in the filename do pci option rom execution from coreboot, and "normal" roms do execution from seabios(where seabios is the only payload provided on normal setups) this is because payloads like grub can also be used, on vgarom setups, where coreboot must handle oprom execution
2023-02-19build/boot/roms: fail when build cbutils failsLeah Rowe
2022-12-27Do not rely on bashisms and behaviour undefined by the POSIX specification.Ferass 'Vitali64' EL HAFIDI
By making lbmk fully POSIX-compliant, it will be easier to port lbmk to other systems implementing POSIX such as Alpine Linux and FreeBSD. Signed-off-by: Ferass 'Vitali64' EL HAFIDI <vitali64pmemail@protonmail.com>
2022-12-11build/boot roms: add exits for failing commandsLeah Rowe
2022-12-10build/roms: Support using "u-boot" ELF file as U-Boot payloadAlper Nebi Yasak
U-Boot runtime configuration is done with a device-tree file, which is built alongside the executable in the upstream build system, and must be available to U-Boot at runtime. This device-tree is normally not linked into the default "u-boot" ELF file. So far we have been handling it by re-creating a "u-boot.elf" from the raw binary parts by setting REMAKE_ELF, and using that as the coreboot payload. Unfortunately, that fails to build for x86 boards, more specificly the "coreboot" boards upstream. It's also possible (but discouraged) to set OF_EMBED to embed the device-tree file into the U-Boot itself, in which case we could use the "u-boot" file as the payload on the "coreboot" boards. Add support for using the "u-boot" file as the payload if "u-boot.elf" doesn't exist. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2022-12-10build/roms: Don't rebuild crossgcc if it was already builtAlper Nebi Yasak
The roms_helper script skips building crossgcc-i386 if its target directory exists. Skip it for other architectures as well. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2022-12-10build/roms: Make coreboot crossgcc usable for payloads and modulesAlper Nebi Yasak
Add the coreboot-built cross-architecture toolchains to the PATH so that modules and payloads can use them. When building for a foreign-arch board, also export CROSS_COMPILE pointing to the appropriate prefix. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2022-12-10build/roms: Build 32-bit crossgcc for AArch64 as wellAlper Nebi Yasak
This re-applies commit a69855f7e448 ("Build 32-bit crossgcc for AArch64 as well") which was inexplicably reverted along with unrelated changes. Mention in a comment that building crossgcc-arm is necessary for AArch64. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2022-12-10build/roms: Don't build Memtest86+ when not specified by cmdlineAlper Nebi Yasak
When overriding which payloads will be built with the -p command line argument, the roms_helper script builds the Memtest86+ payload before checking if it should be disabled. Move the build command after the command line override. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2022-12-10build/roms: Disable U-Boot when not in payloads specified by cmdlineAlper Nebi Yasak
When overriding which payloads will be built with the -p command line argument, the roms_helper script doesn't disable the U-Boot payload. Disable it in this case. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2022-12-05remove logic for avoiding nonredistributable blobsLeah Rowe
the --nuke option in ifdtool will be used instead, to nuke the ME regions in specific rom sets (and cbfstool will be used to delete mrc.bin files from rom sets) the new method being implemented is heavier on disk io, but simplifies lbmk, and disk io could still be optimised in the following ways: * when copying roms from boards with ME in them, use ifdtool --nuke to get filename.rom.new, and *move* (not copy) filename.rom.new to the new destination (for use with tar) * possibly modify ifdtool to make efficient use of mmap for disk i/o; it currently loads entire roms into an allocated buffer in memory
2022-11-29scripts: avoid relying on spaces from sha1sum outputAlexei Sorokin
2022-11-22build/roms: remove seabios_grubfirst logicLeah Rowe
the intended use-case scenario was one in which vga rom initialisation would be used, on desktop configurations, but without coreboot itself handling vga rom initialisation, instead leaving that task to seabios it was assumed that grub, when running on the bare metal with build option "--with-platform=coreboot" would be able to display like this, but it is not so when tested in such setups (add-on gpu with grub payload), it is necessary to extract the video bios and insert it into the coreboot rom, having coreboot handle such execution. this is beyond the scope of lbmk, in context of automated building, because we cannot reliably predict things such as PCI IDs do away with this build option entirely, for it does not serve the intended purpose. it will be necessary to run PC GRUB instead (build option --with-platform=i386-pc). PC GRUB can still read from CBFS, and you could provide it as a floppy image file inside CBFS for SeaBIOS to execute. in this setup, GRUB would function as originally intended by the seabios_withgrub option; such a configuration is referred to as "SeaGRUB" by the libreboot project, and experimentation was done with it in the past, to no avail it's better to keep things simple, in the libreboot project. simpler for users, that is
2022-11-19remove kfsn4-dre, kcma-d8 and kgpe-d16Leah Rowe
buggy, buggy, buggy, buggy, buggy, buggy, buggy full of bugs, these boards never worked properly. i got ripped off with these. now i'm ripping off the band aid use dasharo if you want d16 stuff. i'm done with it.
2022-11-14pragmatic system distribution guideline compliancepsdgLeah Rowe
osboot is now part of libreboot, and will soon shut down. libreboot now conforms to osboot policy.
2022-08-28build/roms: Rebuild cbutils module before starting coreboot buildAlper Nebi Yasak
In recent coreboot versions, running distclean started to erase the cbfstool binary we built earlier in the util/cbfstool dir via the cbutils build script call. The coreboot build puts it in a different directory, and the roms build script can't find it when trying to add payloads to the roms. This doesn't make the script fail (because set -e is stupid like that), and the build appears to succeed if you don't look close enough to see the "cbfsutil not found" error. Build the coreboot utils we want at the places we want them after calling distclean, so that we can actually use cbfsutil and avoid silently-broken roms with newer coreboot versions. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2022-08-28build/roms: Support using U-Boot as a coreboot payloadAlper Nebi Yasak
This enables embedding U-Boot into the coreboot roms as the payload. For now, the ELF file generated by enabling CONFIG_REMAKE_ELF is used, which includes the U-Boot binary and the board-specific device-tree file. It might be better to use the FIT payload support for U-Boot, but that was reportedly broken and is not tested yet. Coreboot boards can specify payload_uboot="y" in their board.cfg to enable building a rom with U-Boot as the payload, which is built from the U-Boot board with the same name. Boards can further specify a uboot_config option, to choose which board-specific config file U-Boot should be built with. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2022-08-28build/roms: Build 32-bit crossgcc for AArch64 as wellAlper Nebi Yasak
The 32-bit ARM cross compiler toolchain is used to build parts of arm-trusted-firmware needed by AArch64 boards, compile the toolchain for those boards as well. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2022-08-28build/roms: Fix building for ARMv7 and AArch64 boardsAlper Nebi Yasak
The code that compiles coreboot crossgcc changes the working directory to the coreboot directory, and the following code cannot find the lbmk scripts that it needs to run. Compile ARMv7 and AArch64 cross compilers in a subshell like in the x86 case so the rest of the script can work. Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
2021-12-29build/boot/roms: fix wrong variable nameLeah Rowe
2021-12-29build/boot/roms: substitute grub_scan_disk according to board.cfgLeah Rowe
2021-12-11Add ARMv7 and AArch64 supportVitali64
2021-12-09add myself in the build/roms_helper scriptVitali64
2021-11-30build/roms: warn if grub_scan_disk is not set at allLeah Rowe