Talk:Coreboot

The name
Is the name supposed to be read as core-boot, or as co-reboot? Or was it chosen deliberately so that it can mean both? CodeCat (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * core-boot makes more sense

GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 22:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

BIOS calls
however most modern operating systems access hardware in another manner and only use BIOS calls during early initialization and as a fallback mechanism. I don't think that's true, by default: GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 22:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The linux kenrel cpufreq Pstate driver uses BIOS's ACPI for the settings
 * many PCI configurations seem to be done reading the configuration from the BIOS(for instance the ACPI DSDT tables)
 * power management requires cooperation from the BIOS(for instance suspend/resume).

None of these are BIOS interrupts, which is what is typically meant with "BIOS calls". Maybe it could be clarified in that direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.72.192 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Separate Libreboot page
I'm thinking about creating a separate page for Libreboot. What are your thoughts? --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Quite frankly, I'd say there isn't enough information about Libreboot even for a short stub article.  Putting more Libreboot-related information into Coreboot instead should be just fine, and should also provide a better context. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dsimic, you must have a watchlist about 2,000 pages long. You seem to be everywhere. In any case, I'll defer to you and add libreboot info on this page instead. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 2,829, to be precise, :) though almost a thousand are various redirects. Sure thing, if over time more Libreboot-specific information becomes available, we can always split it into the separate Libreboot article. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Puri.sm
Librem 15 should ship with Coreboot Librem 13 Coreboot is in development, so new ones should ship with Coreboot --Ne0 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That means it's only planned at this point. There's no guarantee they'll succeed in porting Coreboot to it. As of now, it can't be under the section "Coreboot preloaded devices" because 1) it's not a device yet (hasn't been manufactured) 2) Coreboot hasn't been ported to it. I'm removing it, but feel free to add it again when/if the laptop is released with Coreboot. Pikolas (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Proper capitalization?
In the article, some places use "coreboot" and some places use "Coreboot". Can someone verify which is correct and change the article accordingly? Thanks! 134.129.205.25 (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, it should be "coreboot", but the capitalized version is used in a few places as the first word in a sentence. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 06:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that official usage varies between capitalized and non-capitalized. Same with Libreboot. Pikolas (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Initializing DRAM and romcc
I find this part confusing:

''romcc, a C compiler that uses registers instead of RAM, eases the task. Using romcc, it is relatively easy to make SMBus accesses to the SPD ROMs of the DRAM DIMMs, that allows the RAM to be used.''

First sentence says that romcc compiled programs use CPU registers instead of RAM. Second one says that they use SPD EEPROM. Or they initialise RAM with SPD and use RAM?

77.56.10.61 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree this could be clearer. I don't think romcc "uses" SPD ROM. ROM is read-only, and we need writable memory. romcc reads the on-stick ROM to determine how to access the RAM stick. Timings, latency, voltage, etc. SPD in ROM on RAM sticks is "...a standardized way to automatically access information about a memory module." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_presence_detect

PRR (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Another year of GSoC
Coreboot has been accepted as a GSoC mentor organization, again, in 2016. Sources: https://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2016/03/07/gsoc-2016/, https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/organizations/?sp-search=coreboot --2A02:908:1062:B6C0:221:6AFF:FE73:33D2 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Coreboot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070619101948/www.missl.cs.umd.edu/sebos_phase2.html to http://www.missl.cs.umd.edu/sebos_phase2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coreboot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125130605/http://www.coreboot.org/ADLO to http://www.coreboot.org/ADLO
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110315080000/http://www.se-eng.com/ to http://www.se-eng.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928142218/http://ftp.belnet.be/mirrors/FOSDEM/2007/FOSDEM2007-LinuxBios.ogg to http://ftp.belnet.be/mirrors/FOSDEM/2007/FOSDEM2007-LinuxBios.ogg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"NSA" versus "three letter agency"
"NSA" stands for itself. Saying "three letter agency" adds nothing relevant to this article, and could be seen as disrespectful of NSA or all 3-letter agencies. I am no fan of the NSA but don't think attitude belongs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRR (talk • contribs) 03:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Libreboot into coreboot. It does (barely) meets the notability requirements, but with all the unreliable sources removed, the article becomes a stub. It might be better suited as a section in this article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I second the proposal. The main reasons for me are: a) The Libreboot article has become a stub. b) Wikipedia is not a marketing platform for the company behind Libreboot. Hórdómr (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Hórdómr I'm not really strongly convinced the articles should be merged to be honest. There are quite a few reliable sources that give in-depth coverage. Also, what I generally find annoying about merging/deleting articles is that the other languages keep having an article. IMHO articles should be kept or deleted/merged on all languages, or none (I know that policies differ on every language Wikipeida project, but that's just my opinion) PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

New article merger?
FYI, Over at Talk:Libreboot I've suggested both Libreboot and Coreboot should be merged into a new, more general, article, or sent to AfD. Other comments are welcome. I agree with "marketing platform" comment. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

osboot mention
Under variants there is a line item for osboot as a fork of libreboot that then merged into libreboot. Both citations are from primary sources (no indication of notability of this fork). Furthermore the osboot fork was a spinoff (solely?) by the libreboot dev in the first place! [1] Otherwise I can't find any reliable coverage of osboot. So should probably be folded into libreboot, if mentioned at all.

Cc @Yae4

COI disclosure: Involved with libreboot in 2017.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210325052714/https://osboot.org/authors.html Arzg (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * At a scan, osboot and distroboot look the same with different names, from around December 2020 (if true). It probably doesn't need to be in either article, but I didn't add it, I just adjusted a couple cites. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Proprietary blobs.
Is a program a proprietary program if it was in the public domain or under a license that does not require source code, such as a bsd like license, but still does not have source code?

Or is it only proprietary if under a license the does not let the end user to be able to

" Run the program as you wish, for any purpose. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. "

I do not know if access to the source code is a precondition for making a program a non-proprietary program or not.

Other Cody (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Legality of reverse engineering this software.
I do not know if Libreboot and Coreboot have licenses that forbid reverse engineering or just have binary blobs in them, though that could still be a problem for free as in freedom software as Libreboot may be under GNU General Public License, version 3.

And if it is under GNU General Public License, version 3, maybe also later versions, than till the blobs are removed it could not be "legal" to distribute it with the blobs still in it.

Though if the blobs in Libreboot and Coreboot could be "legally" reverse engineered than Libreboot and Coreboot may also be "legal" to distribute when the blobs have source code that is not obscured, but till than those may be not be distributed without copyright infringement, I think. As Coreboot is under is under GNU General Public License, version 2, maybe also later versions.

Unless exceptions are made in both Libreboot and Coreboot licenses, to link non-free licensed things with the GNU General Public Licenses, somehow, thus making the blobs things that may not be "legal" to reverse engineer or to even distribute, unless you get permission from whoever holds the copyright to the code. Other Cody (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)