MP 1,1-5,1 MP5,1: BootROM thread | 144.0.0.0.0

Status
The first post in this thread is a WikiPost, and can be edited by anyone with the appropriate permissions.

w1z

macrumors 6502
Aug 20, 2013
449
277
I have no hopes that Apple will support 10.15 with 2012 Mac Pros, but will be very welcome if Apple do so.
I think they will unless they decide to postpone 10.15 until Jan 2020 which I don't think they'll do.

Also, and while I welcome their recent bootrom updates, I am highly suspicious of changes made after 140.0.0.0 as they could be tightening things around our ability to rollback bootroms and/or building restrictions to updating to or installing 10.15

I'm really hoping they're just cleaning things up and are actually prepping the 5,1 for 10.15.. However, and seeing that Apple got caught making their own products obselete so they can drive up their dwindling sales, I have come to expect anything from them.
 

tsialex

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
5,710
6,522
Brazil
I think they will unless they decide to postpone 10.15 until Jan 2020 which I don't think they'll do.

Also, and while I welcome their recent bootrom updates, I am highly suspicious of changes made after 140.0.0.0 as they could be tightening things around our ability to rollback bootroms and/or building restrictions to updating to or installing 10.15

I'm really hoping they're just cleaning things up and are actually prepping the 5,1 for 10.15.. However, and seeing that Apple got caught making their own products obselete so they can drive up their dwindling sales, I have come to expect anything from them.
Macs can't rollback BootROMs, it was designed from the start to upgrade, not to downgrade. You can workaround it with some effort, but it was never intended to work. Even PCs today can't downgrade after the ME is updated, Intel has lots of warnings about this.

This thread is already enormous with just BootROM related discussion, please let's keep on topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheStork

w1z

macrumors 6502
Aug 20, 2013
449
277
Macs can't rollback BootROMs, it was designed from the start to upgrade, not to downgrade. You can workaround it with some effort, but it was never intended to work. Even PCs today can't downgrade after the ME is updated, Intel has lots of warnings about this.

This thread is already enormous with just BootROM related discussion, please let's keep on topic.
I was able to rollback to 140.0.0.0 from 141.0.0.0 using the romtool which is what I was pointing to and is within the scope of the discussions in this thread. So how was it never intended to work?

As long as we don't know what changes apple made after the 140 rom then it is wise to proceed with caution with the newer bootroms as they could be making enhancements or adding restrictions.
 

tsialex

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
5,710
6,522
Brazil
I was able to rollback to 140.0.0.0 from 141.0.0.0 using the romtool which is what I was pointing to and is within the scope of the discussions in this thread. So how was it never intended to work?

As long as we don't know what changes apple made after the 140 rom then it is wise to proceed with caution with the newer bootroms as they could be making enhancements or adding restrictions.
This is not a rollback, you just full flashed a backup dump. BTW, you can't do that with anything post iMac Pro.
[doublepost=1552769134][/doublepost]Anyway, once you have your intermediate files, you can reconstruct any BootROM version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IndioX

racer

macrumors member
Sep 23, 2004
33
11
Thessaloniki,Greece
Apple added a lot of new Public Keys to the Mac Pro firmware, GUID
B2CB10B1-714A-4E0C-9ED3-35688B2C99F0.

Not useful for finding the W3xxx problem but interesting that they are adding it to a Vintage Mac?!? This makes me really curious about why Cupertino still keeps updating Mac Pro firmware.
This is quite intriguing, the good scenario, for cMP folks, probably means the new Mac Pro won't be ready for WWDC announcement and we get 10.15 for the cMP.
The indifferent scenario might be that they are just updating the firmware to support future security upgrades to Mojave.
 

tsialex

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
5,710
6,522
Brazil
Still 129.0.0.0.0 for MP6,1:

Code:
$IBIOSI$ MP61.88Z.F000.B00.1902141849
Copyright (c) 2005-2019 Apple Inc.  All rights reserved.
Apple ROM Version
  Model:        MP61
  EFI Version:  129.0.0.0.0
  Built by:     root@saumon
  Date:         Thu Feb 14 18:49:50 PST 2019
  Revision:     129 (B&I)
  ROM Version:  F000_B00
  Build Type:   Official Build, Release
  Compiler:     Apple clang version 3.0 (tags/Apple/clang-211.10.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
 

startergo

macrumors 65816
Sep 20, 2018
1,345
495
Apple added a lot of new Public Keys to the Mac Pro firmware, GUID
B2CB10B1-714A-4E0C-9ED3-35688B2C99F0.

Not useful for finding the W3xxx problem but interesting that they are adding it to a Vintage Mac?!? This makes me really curious about why Cupertino still keeps updating Mac Pro firmware.
According to this article:
"The function at address 0x1000128C will be responsible for retrieving Apple’s public keys from the EFI “file system”. The firmware contains five different 2048 bits public keys. They can be found on EFI file B2CB10B1-714A-4E0C-9ED3-35688B2C99F0."
 

tsialex

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
5,710
6,522
Brazil
According to this article:
"The function at address 0x1000128C will be responsible for retrieving Apple’s public keys from the EFI “file system”. The firmware contains five different 2048 bits public keys. They can be found on EFI file B2CB10B1-714A-4E0C-9ED3-35688B2C99F0."
Yep, I read the Pedro Vilaça article when was published, already commented about his articles here more than one time - he and Trammel Hudson are the people to follow about Apple firmware RE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: startergo

kucharsk

macrumors regular
May 31, 2016
118
74
FWIW I have a factory Mac Pro 5,1 and it came with a:

machdep.cpu.brand_string: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W3680 @ 3.33GHz

Running the last "official" firmware, 140.0.0.0.0.
 

tsialex

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
5,710
6,522
Brazil
FWIW I have a factory Mac Pro 5,1 and it came with a:

machdep.cpu.brand_string: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W3680 @ 3.33GHz

Running the last "official" firmware, 140.0.0.0.0.
All single CPU Xeons are W3xxx from factory. Everyone with a single CPU Mac Pro from 2009 to 2012 that didn’t replaced the processor to a X5xxx/E5xxx/L5xxx can't install 142.0.0.0.0.

To everyone:

Please don't post about your processor, it's useless info and will just derail the thread.
 
Last edited:

bsbeamer

macrumors 68030
Sep 19, 2012
2,853
1,390
140.0.0.0.0 is the latest OFFICIALLY released firmware version for the general public. If you are not a beta tester and/or do not have the tools and resources to identify and fix any issues, this is the latest firmware update you'll be seeing right now.

141.0.0.0.0 is/was a BETA firmware update. This is not available publicly. Beta testers should likely focus efforts on this version right now. (If you also have access to a 970 EVO+ NVMe, see if it resolves any issues and report in the NVMe thread.)

142.0.0.0.0 was a BETA firmware update that appears to have been pulled. It was never released publicly. This is/was the firmware that was causing bricking issues. Clearly Apple knows the issues if they've reverted the firmware to previous beta version. This version will/should never see the public light of day.
 

tsialex

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
5,710
6,522
Brazil
About the 10.14.4 DP3, @Fangio got it March first and told me about it last week. Somehow, I missed it.

So Apple has the full installer for 10.14.4 DP3 for some time.

SUS date:

Code:
<key>PostDate</key>
               <date>2019-02-20T17:59:53Z</date>
               <key>Distributions</key>
               <dict>
 

kucharsk

macrumors regular
May 31, 2016
118
74
All single CPU Xeons are W3xxx from factory. Everyone with a single CPU Mac Pro from 2009 to 2012 that didn’t replaced the processor to a X5xxx/E5xxx/L5xxx can't install 142.0.0.0.0.
Note the first post in this thread did not previously state that; it does now.

Most of us had no idea what the model number of our CPUs were until we needed to find out due to this issue and have not swapped them out, so that information is rather important up front.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dabotsonline

tsialex

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jun 13, 2016
5,710
6,522
Brazil
Note the first post in this thread did not previously state that; it does now.

Most of us had no idea what the model number of our CPUs were until we needed to find out due to this issue and have not swapped them out, so that information is rather important up front.
The problem here is that this thread is an advanced one and it's written for people that know this by heart. It's obvious that sometimes we need to be more accessible to the rest of the users and I'll try to be more clearer in the future.

Thx for adding to the 1st post.
[doublepost=1553056750][/doublepost]Added to the first post a command line to show the exact CPU model, BootROM, etc that your Mac have:

Code:
sysctl -a | grep machdep.cpu.brand_string; system_profiler SPHardwareDataType
Screen Shot 2019-03-20 at 01.38.13.png
 

Mac_User 0101

macrumors regular
Oct 8, 2017
132
28
Mojave don't support HFS+ installs, correct, but TRIM and slower boot is not a problem. If your SSD has problems with TRIM/APFS, update the SSD firmware.

For Mojave, yes.

Read the first post, there are lots of improvements.

All PCIe cards got 5GT/s support.

No.




You shouldn't use a BootROM pre-Meltdown nowadays…

10.13.6 MAS full installer has MP51.0089.B00. Read the first post of the thread MP5,1: What you have to do to upgrade to Mojave to know what you have to do to upgrade your BootROM.

You will need to everything until you have BootROM MP51.0089.B00 if you don't have a METAL GPU.

If you have a METAL supported GPU, GTX 970 is not supported, you can get to 140.0.0.0.0 with the 10.14.3 MAS Mojave full installer.

Btw, Mojave don't support NVIDIA and AMD GPUs at the same time.
Hi, I've been reading through this thread. Very interesting stuff. Please excuse my questions as I'm not intending to derail your thread. I'm running a true 5,1 with upgraded duel X5690's and a flashed EFI GTX 980. I still use 10.11.6 and intend on staying there for a while as I'm an audio engineer and everything currently works. However, I'm interested in the benefit the firmware updates bring mainly in security and PCIe 5GT/s support.
1. Have you noticed any decrease in performance post security patches? (I don't use that computer online so in my case the pros wouldn't outweigh the cons)
2. NVMe support? I'm assuming still not bootable but will it work fine as a data ssd?
3. Can I take 14.0.0.0.0 after properly taking the final High Sierra firmware and still run El Capitan successfully with the Nvidia Web Drivers? I'm aware there aren't web drivers for Mojave yet but not sure if that matters since I only want the firmware and not the OS.
4. Anything else to be aware of before proceeding with these updates? I know it's not really reversible and I'd like to proceed with caution only if there is real benefit for me. I'm also hoping that my fans stop revving up upon cold boot due to the 3rd party GPU. They do settle down after it hits a threshold but the PCIe fans run slightly higher than they used to. Also 2.5GT/s link speed reported with GPU. After reading this thread it sounds like that isn't purely cosmetic as I've been told in the past.
 

Mac_User 0101

macrumors regular
Oct 8, 2017
132
28
1. I've noticed no loss of performance.

2. firmware 140.0.0.0.0 brings NVMe boot support, BUT El Capitan does not nativity support NVMe AFAIK.

3. Yes

4. Just know that you will need a GPU that supports METAL to install 140. You need to read this thread.
Thanks for your reply. I did read over the thread you linked. According to macvidcards and other sources online my GPU (GTX 980) is metal capable although it's not supported officially by Apple. Perhaps I'd be best going as high as firmware 138 and stopping there. That is if I have any luck still tracking down the developer previews they were released in.
 

Status
The first post in this thread is a WikiPost, and can be edited by anyone with the appropriate permissions.