AMD Turin PSP binaries analysis from open-source firmware perspective

Since you've looked at the firmware there quite a lot would you be able to share if you noticed if ES/QS CPUs have different configurations in the firmware or if it's just a matter of duplicating and renaming so that they're recognized?

Re: AMD Turin PSP binaries analysis from open-source firmware perspective

#6

Post by jeffrallen » Mon, Sep 15, 2025, 5:37 AM UTC

brynet wrote: post #4

paulhart wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

He's the founder of the company, looks like he's just hyping up his engineers blog post? Not everything is AI.

Some things are just regular spam. :)

(But, to be fair, I find this content really interesting and a great fit for HN.)

Re: AMD Turin PSP binaries analysis from open-source firmware perspective

#7

Post by strstr » Mon, Sep 15, 2025, 5:48 AM UTC

Source for the ASP firmware is at https://github.com/amd/AMD-ASPFW.

It has a number of gaps, but it is mostly there. It doesn't build, it doesn't have source for some of the service calls iirc (SVC_.*), and the AGESA source isn't open (though a replacement is in progress, openSIL).

Re: AMD Turin PSP binaries analysis from open-source firmware perspective

#8

Post by jmkni » Mon, Sep 15, 2025, 7:14 AM UTC

brynet wrote: post #4

paulhart wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

He's the founder of the company, looks like he's just hyping up his engineers blog post? Not everything is AI.

This blog post went so over my head I could use an AI summary to dumb it down for me so I can understand it

Re: AMD Turin PSP binaries analysis from open-source firmware perspective

#9

Post by Avamander » Mon, Sep 15, 2025, 8:57 AM UTC

I can't wait for a modern system with an open firmware. Just so that there would be any hope for bugfixes outside "works for (default configuration) Windows".

Re: AMD Turin PSP binaries analysis from open-source firmware perspective

#10

Post by kees99 » Mon, Sep 15, 2025, 9:25 AM UTC

Avamander wrote: post #9

I can't wait for a modern system with an open firmware. Just so that there would be any hope for bugfixes outside "works for (default configuration) Windows".

It's all about incentives. My laptop spends good five seconds after each power-on (or resume from suspend-to-disk), showing me giant vendor's logo and doing nothing else.

Surely, open firmware could skip that and boot faster - if vendor would allow an escape hatch from the "secure boot" hell. But why would they expend effort on something 99.9% of users don't care about, and give up free ads in the process, too?