Jump to content

Clover General discussion

ErmaC

By ErmaC,
in Clover

 Share
30960 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sherlocks
Sherlocks
Posted
Posted

Kext patch: xxxxa.kext/Contents/PlugIns/xxxxb.kext

 

it's same like other patch

example

name com.apple.driver.AirPort.Brcm4360

find you want

replace you want

matchos you want

 

if you want to correct info, go to PlugIns folder and open info that you want to patch kext. example

AirPortBrcm4360.kext, you can see Bundle identifier "com.apple.driver.AirPort.Brcm4360" <--- use.

Guest ricoc90
Guest ricoc90
Posted
Posted

it's same like other patch

example

name com.apple.driver.AirPort.Brcm4360

find you want

replace you want

matchos you want

 

if you want to correct info, go to PlugIns folder and open info that you want to patch kext. example

AirPortBrcm4360.kext, you can see Bundle identifier "com.apple.driver.AirPort.Brcm4360" <--- use.

 

Ah, thanks! I did not know you could use the bundle identifier  :blush:

MattsCreative
MattsCreative
Posted
Posted

I don't care, do whatever, this conversation is going nowhere. Instead of suggesting to make the patches better so they work since THEY ARE NEEDED TO BOOT. You are all arguing about whether they should be able to be turned off, for what purpose? If the patch is not performed you cannot boot, this only applies to specific CPUs, these CPUs should be detected, all the information to determine need is there. In my opinion adding a boolean key makes it actually worse user experience because people are going to turn it on when they don't need it and wonder why they can't boot, or not turn it on when they do need it. And the most qualified person to solve an issue is a developer, I've never seen any random person just come on here and be like if you search for this binary data and replace it with this then this will work. You need the set of skills of a developer to be able to debug something.

 

EDIT: And now you've gone and irritated me.  :wallbash:

bios not firmware but BIOS 

oSxFr33k
oSxFr33k
Posted
Posted

For a much easier way to see the Mac log, please use maclog(http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/319998-get-system-log-from-1012-much-much-easierby-just-a-simply-click/?hl=%2Bmaclog&do=findComment&comment=2346366)

 

syscl

Hello @apiant Haswell-E also has some issues: need add some patches manually. I will try to improve it once Celeron/Pentium on Skylake+ issue fixed :).

 

 

@Sherlocks Thank you for detail information. You said KernelPM still need on you Pentium right? But you said you have patched MSR 0xE2 lock...On MSI H87M-G43(unlocked MSR 0xE2 manually), I never use KernelPM=True. I will made a new Clover for you to see if it works!

 

Edited: @apiant pointed out your MSR 0xE2 still locked(clear 15bit at boot), need KernelPM unconditionally in this case.

 

syscl

 

 

Thanks!

PMheart
PMheart
Posted
Posted

Hi.

 

I propose to add a boolean under KernelAndKextPatches named KernelIvyXCPM. It helps those who have Ivy Bridge CPU to enable XCPM without manual patches. The patches were made based on Clover r4153.

Thanks to Pike R. Alpha, theracermaster, syscl and some other great guys who helped me develop this new function.

 

ivy_xcpm_ok_4153.zip

 

Thank you!

 

EDIT: I saw @Sherlocks added it. Really appreciated, thanks @Sherlocks!

  • Like 7
Riley Freeman
Riley Freeman
Posted
Posted

Thanks. I didn't dig too deep into getting XCPM working on my laptop once AICPUPM worked fine. But now I have it working with a single config.plist entry :)

 

Well, it's working in 10.11.6, but not in 10.12.6 or 10.13 PB. Maybe I'm missing something else.

  • Like 1
MICKHAEL
MICKHAEL
Posted
Posted

Hi.

 

I propose to add a boolean under KernelAndKextPatches named KernelIvyXCPM. It helps those who have Ivy Bridge CPU to enable XCPM without manual patches. The patches were made based on Clover r4153.

Thanks to Pike R. Alpha, theracermaster, syscl and some other great guys who helped me develop this new function.

 

attachicon.gifivy_xcpm_ok_4153.zip

 

Thank you!

 

EDIT: I saw @Sherlocks added it. Really appreciated, thanks @Sherlocks!

 

hello. how about something like that for Broadwell-E?)

apianti
apianti
Posted
Posted

bios not firmware but BIOS 

 

What?

For IBM PC compatible computers, BIOS (/ˈbaɪ.ɒs/ BYOS, an acronym for Basic Input/Output System and also known as the System BIOS, ROM BIOS or PC BIOS) is non-volatile firmware used to perform hardware initialization during the booting process (power-on startup), and to provide runtime services for operating systems and programs
PMheart
PMheart
Posted
Posted

hello. how about something like that for Broadwell-E?)

Hello,

I think there's been already such patches, not very perfect though...

https://sourceforge.net/p/cloverefiboot/code/4154/tree//rEFIt_UEFI/Platform/kernel_patcher.c#l1032

Thanks. I didn't dig too deep into getting XCPM working on my laptop once AICPUPM worked fine. But now I have it working with a single config.plist entry :)

 

Well, it's working in 10.11.6, but not in 10.12.6 or 10.13 PB. Maybe I'm missing something else.

What happened with 10.12+? May be an instant reboot I guess?

apianti
apianti
Posted
Posted

@sherlocks, PMheart,

 

I think - just focusing too much on a boolean to turn something on or off that is needed to boot. But you are forgetting, either the patch is successful and boot. Or the patch fails, because it doesn't happen, and no boot or the user can still patch using the more advanced kernel/kext patching. What is the purpose of turning it on or off? Turn it off to do your own exact same patch? I guess I just don't see the point. Look at the current problem relating to KernelPm, it's pretty easy to detect and the setting just causes confusion since it has three options, on/off/detect but clover configurator only has a checkbox and writes out =true/false; detection happens when the key is absent.

  • Like 3
PMheart
PMheart
Posted
Posted

@sherlocks, PMheart,

 

I think - just focusing too much on a boolean to turn something on or off that is needed to boot. But you are forgetting, either the patch is successful and boot. Or the patch fails, because it doesn't happen, and no boot or the user can still patch using the more advanced kernel/kext patching. What is the purpose of turning it on or off? Turn it off to do your own exact same patch? I guess I just don't see the point. Look at the current problem relating to KernelPm, it's pretty easy to detect and the setting just causes confusion since it has three options, on/off/detect but clover configurator only has a checkbox and writes out =true/false; detection happens when the key is absent.

Hi, well, as for XCPM on Ivy Bridge, I think it's just users' choices to use XCPM or AICPUPM. So I guess a boolean could let user determine the primary power management mechanism. (If KernelIvyXCPM = TRUE then XCPM, otherwise AICPUPM.)

  • Like 1
mhaeuser
mhaeuser
Posted
Posted

@sherlocks, PMheart,

 

I think - just focusing too much on a boolean to turn something on or off that is needed to boot. But you are forgetting, either the patch is successful and boot. Or the patch fails, because it doesn't happen, and no boot or the user can still patch using the more advanced kernel/kext patching. What is the purpose of turning it on or off? Turn it off to do your own exact same patch? I guess I just don't see the point. Look at the current problem relating to KernelPm, it's pretty easy to detect and the setting just causes confusion since it has three options, on/off/detect but clover configurator only has a checkbox and writes out =true/false; detection happens when the key is absent.

 

Agreeing with you, though choice is never bad. Maybe it's the right time to discover the endless power of PCDs? ;)

  • Like 1
apianti
apianti
Posted
Posted

Hi, well, as for XCPM on Ivy Bridge, I think it's just users' choices to use XCPM or AICPUPM. So I guess a boolean could let user determine the primary power management mechanism. (If KernelIvyXCPM = TRUE then XCPM, otherwise AICPUPM.)

 

That's an entirely different thing all together. That's giving other CPUs that can boot without this patch, the ability to have this patch. This means that the only setting that would matter is KernelIvyXCPM=true, or it uses detection.... I didn't look at your patch but is that what it does or does setting KernelIvyXCPM=false turn off this patch altogether?

 

 

Agreeing with you, though choice is never bad. Maybe it's the right time to discover the endless power of PCDs? ;)

 

Oh god, it's beyond that at this point. Plus just another level of complexity gasoline you're throwing into a wildfire. lol

  • Like 2
PMheart
PMheart
Posted
Posted (edited)

That's an entirely different thing all together. That's giving other CPUs that can boot without this patch, the ability to have this patch. This means that the only setting that would matter is KernelIvyXCPM=true, or it uses detection.... I didn't look at your patch but is that what it does or does setting KernelIvyXCPM=false turn off this patch altogether?

Yes. So we should definitely give users ability to choose.

 

Some reasons to let it return false:

1. Unsupported macOS (< 10.8.5, because there was just no XCPM, or > 10.14, how can that be for now lol)

2. CPU is not Ivy Bridge.

3. KernelIvyXCPM = false in config.plist (Users may want to enjoy the good old AICPUPM)

 

How could we even make a detection when both ways are ok?

Edited by PMheart
  • Like 1
MattsCreative
MattsCreative
Posted
Posted

What?

For IBM PC compatible computers, BIOS (/ˈbaɪ.ɒs/ BYOS, an acronym for Basic Input/Output System and also known as the System BIOS, ROM BIOS or PC BIOS) is non-volatile firmware used to perform hardware initialization during the booting process (power-on startup), and to provide runtime services for operating systems and programs
was just messing how are you and clover v3 I can’t wait

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Riley Freeman
Riley Freeman
Posted
Posted

What happened with 10.12+? May be an instant reboot I guess?

 

No reboot, but running sysctl machdep reported xcpm.mode as 0. In 10.11.6 it reports as 1 and shows the correct values for the min and max states (0 again in 10.12+).

Slice
Slice
Posted
Posted

Hi guys :)

 

Did someone had success in 'patch on the fly' info.plist with HD 67xx graphics cards?

I was debugging InfoPlist patching and it should work if made correctly

But there is one problem. If you want to patch IOPCIMatch with your DeviceID then it will not work because the kext is not loaded yet for patching.

For this purpose you have to use FakeID feature in Clover.

  • Like 2
vector sigma
vector sigma
Posted
Posted

I was debugging InfoPlist patching and it should work if made correctly

But there is one problem. If you want to patch IOPCIMatch with your DeviceID then it will not work because the kext is not loaded yet for patching.

For this purpose you have to use FakeID feature in Clover.

Used Chameleon during my first steps on this site. I was able to patch my wifi Info.plist (one of some) by create an injector on the fly using the following:

post-674334-0-40440100-1487279418.png

and worked. Maybe you could do the same? I ended up making real kexts injector in /Other since actually is a bit difficult.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...