Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.

startergo

macrumors 603
Sep 20, 2018
5,022
2,283
I can confirm that the issue of disks connected to PCIe slots not loading at times, particularly after cold starts, affects Refind as well.
Then you have another issue not related to OC. rEFInd without OC should not have any issues.
 

cdf

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jul 27, 2012
2,256
2,583
Then you have another issue not related to OC. rEFInd without OC should not have any issues.

I think there are two issues being discussed here. One is about PCIe drives not being seen during cold boots; the other is about APFS drives. The first issue is not OpenCore related (it even manifests itself when booting natively). In fact, OpenCore could even help resolve it. As for the second issue, I have not experienced it myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: startergo

Dayo

macrumors 68020
Dec 21, 2018
2,257
1,279
I think there are two issues being discussed here. One is about PCIe drives not being seen during cold boots; the other is about APFS drives.
I must have missed the APFS thing when it was raised and have also not had any APFS related issues ... only the PCIe disk from cold boot issue.

Can't recollect ever seeing this when booting natively ... only with Refind and OpenCore. That is not to say it never happened. Just can't recollect.
 

startergo

macrumors 603
Sep 20, 2018
5,022
2,283
I think there are two issues being discussed here. One is about PCIe drives not being seen during cold boots; the other is about APFS drives. The first issue is not OpenCore related (it even manifests itself when booting natively). In fact, OpenCore could even help resolve it. As for the second issue, I have not experienced it myself.
Mine is related particularly to the EFI MVC vbios. It works fine on a regular GOP vbios. Also. If I use boot kicker as a blessed driver I can see the APFS as it kicks back to the Apple boot picker.
 

David403

macrumors regular
Nov 5, 2017
144
136
USA
Opencore 0.58 - is giving me only the text boot picker?

I have a cMP 5,1 32Gb,1Tb SSD x 2 plus 2 x 2Tb HDD. Sappire Radeon RX580, Opencore-Catalina 10.15.5, Mojave 10.14.6
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 10.43.05 AM.png


Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 10.39.32 AM.png


I was looking forward to seeing a graphic bootpicker - but only text shows at startup my mac Pro 5,1 with opencore 0.58 installed.

I have used the standard config.plist file. I did not edit it other than to set the Cpuid1Mask to 'On'.
I haven't made any other edits.

I have a standard RX 580 Graphic Card purchased as new in September 2018 (It is NOT a Mining/Gaming card with a switch)
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 12.06.15 PM.png


Can anyone suggest what I can try to fix this ?

Thanks
 

cdf

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jul 27, 2012
2,256
2,583
I was looking forward to seeing a graphic bootpicker - but only text shows at startup my mac Pro 5,1 with opencore 0.58 installed.

As mentioned in the guide, the graphical boot picker is provided by OpenCanopy, which currently has a few issues. However, the next version of OpenCore (which will be out in a few days) brings many improvements, and the guide will be updated to cover the installation of OpenCanopy.
 

David403

macrumors regular
Nov 5, 2017
144
136
USA
As mentioned in the guide, the graphical boot picker is provided by OpenCanopy, which currently has a few issues. However, the next version of OpenCore (which will be out in a few days) brings many improvements, and the guide will be updated to cover the installation of OpenCanopy.
Thanks for the prompt reply - I had been under the impression that OpenCanopy was built in now. I’ll wait for the updated version of Opencore soon... thanks again
 

Dayo

macrumors 68020
Dec 21, 2018
2,257
1,279
I had been under the impression that OpenCanopy was built in now.
The current v0.5.8 does have it built in now and you can activate it if you want.
What cdf is saying is that the upcoming v0.5.9 (expected 01 June) contains improvements.
 

TECK

macrumors 65816
Nov 18, 2011
1,129
478
The AMD driver should enable HWAccel by default.
How can I verify is the case? I was googling and apparently there is a Troubleshooting tab that shows on driver properties. I did not see any of that.


I had been under the impression that OpenCanopy was built in now.
Did you added the OcBinaryData, needed for OpenCanopy? Look at the official instructions, they tell you exactly what how to enable OpenCanopy.
 

h9826790

macrumors P6
Apr 3, 2014
16,656
8,587
Hong Kong
How can I verify is the case? I was googling and apparently there is a Troubleshooting tab that shows on driver properties. I did not see any of that.



Did you added the OcBinaryData, needed for OpenCanopy? Look at the official instructions, they tell you exactly what how to enable OpenCanopy.
VideoProc has Windows version.

Or something as simple as GPU-Z can show you the UVD / VCE clock speed. You should able to see the GPU loading, and that clock speed change when using HWAccel (e.g. play a HEVC video).
Radeon VII - Liquid metal (Luxmark).PNG


Of course, Handbrake, FFMpeg, etc can do hardware encoding. You can also do a short video transcoding to check if that works properly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TECK

applCore

macrumors regular
May 3, 2011
193
78
OpenCore on Legacy Apple Hardware

This guide explains how to use the excellent OpenCore bootloader on a classic Mac Pro to install, run and update macOS Catalina, resulting in a clean, unpatched operating system no different than on a supported Mac.

...

Nice set of instructions. Could you pull together a version or a set of differentials for an upgrade or migration of an existing Catalina install (running on @dosdude1's method) to this OpenCore method? Having an additional drive is not really an option for some of us, so having an upgrade path of how to migrate over and a clear path of doing so documented before jumping in would sooth the soul...
 

cdf

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jul 27, 2012
2,256
2,583
Nice set of instructions. Could you pull together a version or a set of differentials for an upgrade or migration of an existing Catalina install (running on @dosdude1's method) to this OpenCore method?

Some updates are planned. Question: Can you get into recovery with your patched install?
 

applCore

macrumors regular
May 3, 2011
193
78
Would have expected that this is always an option on a MacPro.

Depends on what you mean by option. I can think of several scenarios, including mine, where it's not an "option" due to various circumstances. I don't need to get into these, but yeah, there are definitely such scenarios.
[automerge]1590677938[/automerge]
Some updates are planned. Question: Can you get into recovery with your patched install?

Yes. I can also boot onto a USB flash drive that I can build - which you might consider an extra drive, but not as flexible only being at 32GB.
 

cdf

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jul 27, 2012
2,256
2,583

In that case, you can always try installing to the EFI partition of the drive containing your patched Catalina installation (this becomes both Disk A and B in the guide). However, keep in mind that because your installation is patched, it might cause problems, especially with more advanced configurations of OpenCore.
 

tsialex

Contributor
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
In that case, you can always try installing to the EFI partition of the drive containing your patched Catalina installation (this becomes both Disk A and B in the guide). However, keep in mind that because your installation is patched, it might cause problems, especially with more advanced configurations of OpenCore.
The best thing about OpenCore is the possibility of running totally standard/vanilla macOS installs, I'm failing to see why support patched installs at all.
 

cdf

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jul 27, 2012
2,256
2,583
The best thing about OpenCore is the possibility of running totally standard/vanilla macOS installs, I'm failing to see why support patched installs at all.

Agreed. I do not recommend it at all. I'm just expressing what could be possible.
 

Dayo

macrumors 68020
Dec 21, 2018
2,257
1,279
However, keep in mind that because your installation is patched, it might cause problems, especially with more advanced configurations of OpenCore.
What might these be? Not seeing any issues with my patched installation of Mojave. OpenCore boots it and gets out of the way as far as I can see.
 

xbomber2002

macrumors newbie
Jun 12, 2019
19
2
This is a complex topic, with different problems from different sources and different causes.

The NVRAM is a volume, this volume is stored inside the same SPI flash that stores the BootROM. The NVRAM volume have 4 partitions, the stores. The first two stores are where the various NVRAM settings are stored, the third (Fsys) is where hardwareIDs (SSN, HWC, Base_xx, SON and some more exoteric data for tracking repairs/refurbishment by Apple) and the hardware descriptor are stored at the manufacture time, the last one is another store for settings (Gaid) but the exact function of this one is still not understood, seems a analogous of a HWC and changes with different HWCs. Gaid is filled at the manufacture time too, these two stores are not changed, unless when Apple stores tracking data for repairs/refurbishment. The first two stores are 64KB each, the full NVRAM is 192KB. All stores have checksums at the end, CRC32-little endian.

When you do a clear NVRAM, only settings stored at the first and second stores are cleaned and only settings that are user accessible. The user accessible settings are what nvram -xp shows you, so, anything listed below are not cleared:
  • Microsoft certificates/BD/PK/etc,
  • MemoryConfig settings and DIMM SPD dumps,
  • NVIDIA blobs
  • other obscure settings
The problem with the NVRAM is that Apple didn't used a filesystem robust enough for 11+ years of continuous use. The NVRAM of a Mac Pro is exactly the same as a MacBook from the same platform, Apple never intended that we, 11 years down the road, change DIMMs, boot disks, CPUs frequently as we do. That is the real problem, since with the constant changes the NVRAM stores are now seriously fragmented and settings that are not user accessible are not being erased anymore. Some Mac Pros have ~30 DIMM SPDs dumps, multiple Microsoft certificates/DBs/PKs/etc, NVIDIA blobs and now the NVRAM is fragmented and full. Besides the NVRAM fragmentation problems, some people are now having SPI failures where some of the sectors that store the NVRAM data are now over the 100.000 rated writes and the SPI flash needs to be replaced.

With BootROMs older or newer than MP51.0087.B00, you can't immediately brick your Mac Pro running W10, since the W10 crash is related to the Intel missing microcodes of MP51.0087.B00. The Mac Pro bricks because the NVRAM volume was trashed while the SecureBoot data were being written during the W10 crash.

The multiple SecureBoot data stored inside the NVRAM is a symptom of the fragmentation that we got early on before understanding all the implications. If you have two or more, you probably don't have much more space inside the stores since the SecureBoot data written on the NVRAM requires considerable space. Some people here reported that with just two occurrences, showing with binwalk report, don't have space to change the default boot disk anymore, usually they boot Windows 10 and have to remove the disk to boot macOS back. This happens with other Macs too, owners of Mini late-2012 had the same problem and asked for a clean-up.

The BootBlock problem is caused by the MP4,1>5,1 firmware upgrade process, you have a MP4,1 BootBlock with a MP5,1 firmware and can't recover from that if your BootROM is corrupted. It's a real problem, while would be better to have a MP5,1 BootBlock and the capability to try to recover from a corrupted BootROM, it's not something that will interfere with the normal usage of your Mac Pro.

Hi,

Really confused after some reading in this thread. I’m somehow newbie and I’m trying to reassure myself. « Secure Boot » and boot ROM is still baffling me and i’m really worried that I could brick unintentionally my Mac Pro 5,1 because of my ignorance.

I didn’t installed windows 10 by mean of bootcamp but instead from a USB flash drive in UEFI mode in a dedicated partition of my SATA drive (Catalina and Mojave are on another partition of the same drive into their common APFS container). Installation succeed and i can access to win10 by the apple Startup Manager window (not the OC boot picker one didn’t do it). During the install didn’t know anything about the difference between UEFI and BIOS legacy mode so I followed the default windows install steps…Now that I’m aware of my mistake what should I do ?

The dump of my boot ROM (for sure model chip MX25L3205D, I see it) with ROMTool gave me by textedit search 6 occurrences of « Secure Boot ». I have the latest Boot ROM version 144.0.0.0.0. Happily until now my Mac Pro is still working but for how long time ? Questions :

From now on what is the risk to brick my Mac ? in other words, beyond which « Secure Boot » occurence my Mac could be lost ? Should i leave the boot ROM the way it is or a clean is required ? If yes, how can I proceed ?

Is there a way to convert my windows partition so that I can boot in legacy mode instead of UEFI without loss of data or should i do a fresh install from scratch ?

Please help. It is such a sad event for anyone to lose his Mac Pro.
 

cdf

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jul 27, 2012
2,256
2,583
What might these be? Not seeing any issues with my patched installation of Mojave. OpenCore boots it and gets out of the way as far as I can see.

I would argue that the effects of OpenCore persist because of kernel fixes, and injected extensions might expect to find things a certain way to be effective.
 

tsialex

Contributor
Jun 13, 2016
13,455
13,602
Hi,

Really confused after some reading in this thread. I’m somehow newbie and I’m trying to reassure myself. « Secure Boot » and boot ROM is still baffling me and i’m really worried that I could brick unintentionally my Mac Pro 5,1 because of my ignorance.

I didn’t installed windows 10 by mean of bootcamp but instead from a USB flash drive in UEFI mode in a dedicated partition of my SATA drive (Catalina and Mojave are on another partition of the same drive into their common APFS container). Installation succeed and i can access to win10 by the apple Startup Manager window (not the OC boot picker one didn’t do it). During the install didn’t know anything about the difference between UEFI and BIOS legacy mode so I followed the default windows install steps…Now that I’m aware of my mistake what should I do ?

The dump of my boot ROM (for sure model chip MX25L3205D, I see it) with ROMTool gave me by textedit search 6 occurrences of « Secure Boot ». I have the latest Boot ROM version 144.0.0.0.0. Happily until now my Mac Pro is still working but for how long time ? Questions :

From now on what is the risk to brick my Mac ? in other words, beyond which « Secure Boot » occurence my Mac could be lost ? Should i leave the boot ROM the way it is or a clean is required ? If yes, how can I proceed ?

Is there a way to convert my windows partition so that I can boot in legacy mode instead of UEFI without loss of data or should i do a fresh install from scratch ?

Please help. It is such a sad event for anyone to lose his Mac Pro.
Install binwalk and post the output of the analysis of your dump here. Searching for the text is not a reliable way to verify SecureBoot, six SecureBoot occurrences are only possible with a MP6,1, AFAIK.
 

Dayo

macrumors 68020
Dec 21, 2018
2,257
1,279
I would argue that the effects of OpenCore persist because of kernel fixes, and injected extensions might expect to find things a certain way to be effective.
Got you. Not seeing any thing to suggest any issues so far between extensions and patches so far.
 

xbomber2002

macrumors newbie
Jun 12, 2019
19
2
Install binwalk and post the output of the analysis of your dump here. Searching for the text is not a reliable way to verify SecureBoot, six SecureBoot occurrences are only possible with a MP6,1, AFAIK.

Prodemondhermac:~ mondhermac$ binwalk Documents/myrom.bin

DECIMAL HEXADECIMAL DESCRIPTION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 0x0 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 524288, header size: 1, revision: 0, EFI Firmware File System, GUID: 7A9354D9-0468-444A-CE81-0BF617D890DF

24972 0x618C CRC32 polynomial table, little endian

35787 0x8BCB mcrypt 2.2 encrypted data, algorithm: blowfish-448, mode: CBC, keymode: 8bit

524288 0x80000 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 524288, header size: 1, revision: 0, EFI Firmware File System, GUID: 7A9354D9-0468-444A-CE81-0BF617D890DF

549260 0x8618C CRC32 polynomial table, little endian

560075 0x88BCB mcrypt 2.2 encrypted data, algorithm: blowfish-448, mode: CBC, keymode: 8bit

1048576 0x100000 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 16384, header size: 1, revision: 0, EFI Firmware File System, GUID: 7A9354D9-0468-444A-CE81-0BF617D890DF

1064960 0x104000 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 49152, header size: 1, revision: 0, GUID: 153D2197-29BD-44DC-59AC-887F70E41A6B

1065216 0x104100 Intel x86 or x64 microcode, sig 0x000106a5, pf_mask 0x03, 2018-05-11, rev 0x001d, size 12288

1077504 0x107100 Intel x86 or x64 microcode, sig 0x000206c0, pf_mask 0x13, 2009-08-20, rev 0x-ffea, size 8192

1085696 0x109100 Intel x86 or x64 microcode, sig 0x000206c2, pf_mask 0x03, 2018-05-08, rev 0x001f, size 11264

1114112 0x110000 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 16384, header size: 1, revision: 0, EFI Firmware File System, GUID: 7A9354D9-0468-444A-CE81-0BF617D890DF

1130496 0x114000 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 49152, header size: 1, revision: 0, GUID: 153D2197-29BD-44DC-59AC-887F70E41A6B

1130752 0x114100 Intel x86 or x64 microcode, sig 0x000106a5, pf_mask 0x03, 2018-05-11, rev 0x001d, size 12288

1143040 0x117100 Intel x86 or x64 microcode, sig 0x000206c0, pf_mask 0x13, 2009-08-20, rev 0x-ffea, size 8192

1151232 0x119100 Intel x86 or x64 microcode, sig 0x000206c2, pf_mask 0x03, 2018-05-08, rev 0x001f, size 11264

1179648 0x120000 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 196608, header size: 1, revision: 0, Variable Storage, GUID: FFF12B8D-7696-4C8B-85A9-2747075B4F50

1185570 0x121722 Certificate in DER format (x509 v3), header length: 4, sequence length: 986

1251106 0x131722 Certificate in DER format (x509 v3), header length: 4, sequence length: 986

1343511 0x148017 bzip2 compressed data, block size = 100k

1376256 0x150000 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 2686976, header size: 1, revision: 0, EFI Firmware File System, GUID: 7A9354D9-0468-444A-CE81-0BF617D890DF

4063232 0x3E0000 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 65536, header size: 1, revision: 0, GUID: E3B980A9-5FE3-48E5-929B-2798385A9027

4128768 0x3F0000 UEFI PI Firmware Volume, volume size: 65536, header size: 0, revision: 0, Apple Boot Volume, GUID: 04ADEEAD-61FF-4D31-BAB6-64F8BF901F5A
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.