Contribute
Register

How to build your own iMac Pro [Successful Build/Extended Guide]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loloflatsix said:
Here attached below my EFI folder
Click to expand...
Thank you!
Have you done B1 (OSX XCPM power management) on your motherboard? I stuck here: "./UEFIpatch PRIME-X299-DELUXE-ASUS-1102.CAP" because didn't understand how to use the script with gigabyte FW x299UD4.F6b file.

This is what I get if I patch gigabyte FW:

bash-3.2$ ./UEFIpatch X299UD4.F6b

parseSection: decompression failed with error "Standard decompression failed"

parseFile: non-empty pad-file contents will be destroyed after volume modifications

patch: replaced 8 bytes at offset 34A5h 81E10080000033C1 -> 9090909090909090

patch: replaced 45 bytes at offset 1519h B9E20000000F328BC8BE0080000023CE0BCF75190BC6894424088954240C8B54240C8B442408B9E20000000F30 -> BA00000000B800000000B93B0000000F3090909090909090909090909090909090909090909090909090909090

patch: replaced 16 bytes at offset 1F1Eh 488BD6B9100000008BC648C1EA200F30 -> 90909090909090909090909090909090

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

Image patched

bash-3.2$
 
Last edited:
I had tried with errors and the process stoped before you : it's seems you have patch it.
 
Loloflatsix said:
I had tried with errors and the process stoped before you : it's seems you have patch it.
Click to expand...
yeah, but the file is not accepted by BIOS on flash
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0646.JPG
    IMG_0646.JPG
    2.1 MB · Views: 123
rauan1 said:
Thank you!
Have you done B1 (OSX XCPM power management) on your motherboard? I stuck here: "./UEFIpatch PRIME-X299-DELUXE-ASUS-1102.CAP" because didn't understand how to use the script with gigabyte FW x299UD4.F6b file.

This is what I get if I patch gigabyte FW:

bash-3.2$ ./UEFIpatch X299UD4.F6b

parseSection: decompression failed with error "Standard decompression failed"

parseFile: non-empty pad-file contents will be destroyed after volume modifications

patch: replaced 8 bytes at offset 34A5h 81E10080000033C1 -> 9090909090909090

patch: replaced 45 bytes at offset 1519h B9E20000000F328BC8BE0080000023CE0BCF75190BC6894424088954240C8B54240C8B442408B9E20000000F30 -> BA00000000B800000000B93B0000000F3090909090909090909090909090909090909090909090909090909090

patch: replaced 16 bytes at offset 1F1Eh 488BD6B9100000008BC648C1EA200F30 -> 90909090909090909090909090909090

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

rebase: can't determine if TE image base is adjusted or not, rebased TE image may stop working

Image patched

bash-3.2$
Click to expand...

@rauan1, @Loloflatsix

Section B.1) and BIOS Firmware Patches by @interferenc are ASUS ONLY!

I clearly mentioned this in my guide and along this thread several times!

The title of Section B.1) clearly states:

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 22.55.18.png
 
dankium said:
My last two comments maybe should be ignored for the time being in regards to 970 driver patch & audio dropouts. I am noticing that my console is constantly outputting kernal codes similar to what was looping in the failed boot after nvidia driver patch, which could also be attributing to the dropouts. I will try a fresh install again. Though in regards to the audio dropouts I am showing many users with similar console messages in 10.13 for IOAudioEngineUserClient[<private>]::performWatchdogOutput(<private>, though my 10.3.2 was perfectly stable on the x99 platform (thanks to @kgp's original 10.13.2 guide.)

This is across RME/Apollo/other devices using multiple software programs(nuendo, Mainstage & logic)
https://www.forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?pid=125299

When I plug my 10.3.2 hard drive into my x299 machine it is seemingly running smoother, graphics included, but I still get the same massive console messages of IOAudioEngineUserClient[<private>]::performWatchdogOutput(<private> unless I switch to 64 samples. BIOS version 1102 x64

I do not use onboard audio, rather am running RME UFX+ USB/Thunderbolt device @ 32 samples. This was solid on my x99 with 10.13.2, even 16 samples if my track count was low. For live looping I need this instant processing. I will go back and check that I was not getting these messages on my x99 rig and try a fresh install of 10.13.3

Thank you
Click to expand...

@dankium, please read and respond on the questions of @DSM2 in post #5424, instead of distributing further conspiracies about Pro Tools 2018 HDX and it's performance on the Skylake-X/X299 platform...

We formerly discussed similar issues already in terms of LogicX. All LogicX issues have been identified, clarified and removed in the meanwhile (including the fix of the Intel SKZ7 Skylake-X Bug by means of ASUS microcode updates in the actual ASUS BIOS Firmware)!

Best regards,

KGP
 
Last edited:
Loloflatsix said:
@yuschmi

Rename your SL slot for example :

SL05 -> GFX0 find 534c3035 replace 47465830



(sorry for my English )
Click to expand...

Hi Loloflatsix,

I searched for 'SL' in IORegistryExplorer but where you have an 'SL...' in your screenshot there's a 'GFX0' here (see attached screenshot) - do I use 'SL05' from 'acpi-path shown on the right then instead?

Is the explanation for this difference simply that your screenshot shows a situation after patching?

Many thanks & best regards

Y.
 

Attachments

  • Bildschirmfoto 2018-02-16 um 01.19.21.jpg
    Bildschirmfoto 2018-02-16 um 01.19.21.jpg
    305.3 KB · Views: 191
yuschmi said:
Hi Loloflatsix,

I searched for 'SL' in IORegistryExplorer but where you have an 'SL...' in your screenshot there's a 'GFX0' here (see attached screenshot) - do I use 'SL05' from 'acpi-path shown on the right then instead?

Is the explanation for this difference simply that your screenshot shows a situation after patching?

Many thanks & best regards

Y.
Click to expand...

SL05 is the variable name before the ACPI patching and GFX0 is the variable name after the ACPI pathing..

SL05 -> GFX0 ... obvious, isn't it?

After the patching, SL05 does not exist anymore and that's why you are not able to find SL05 in the IROEG either after the ACPI patching, but you find GFX0 instead! Before the ACPI patching you would find SL05 in IOREG but GFX0 would not yet exist...

:rolleyes: o_O
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Copyright © 2010 - 2024 tonymacx86 LLC
Back
Top