Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

HP EliteBook Folio 9480m #48

Closed
thecatdidit opened this issue Mar 23, 2018 · 7 comments
Closed

HP EliteBook Folio 9480m #48

thecatdidit opened this issue Mar 23, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

@thecatdidit
Copy link

thecatdidit commented Mar 23, 2018

(Adding another model for the cause!)

Here is a working config for another model: the HP EliteBook Folio 9480m. This includes:

  • BIOS Update 1.42 (SP85010)
  • Intel ME 9.5.62.3002 (SP82540)

BIOS-Update.txt
ME-Update.txt
BIOS-Settings.txt
HP EliteBook Folio 9480m.zip

@texhex
Copy link
Owner

texhex commented Mar 23, 2018

Thanks @thecatdidit (great username btw :), this looks fine to me and it will be added.

However, you have disabled both UEFI and Secure Boot in BIOS-Settings.txt:

#Boot Mode==UEFI Native (Without CSM)
#SecureBoot==Enable

Does this mean the 9480m does not support these settings or they are supported but you do not use them? If possible both settings should be one to follow Microsoft best practice.

texhex added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 23, 2018
@thecatdidit
Copy link
Author

thecatdidit commented Mar 23, 2018

@texhex Unfortunately, in my IT menagerie, the screams for wall-to-wall Windows 10 were like fighting City Hall. I did create a Task Sequence block that flipped the EliteBook 94x0 models before imaging began. However, the timeline didn't let me test enough for a proper sign-off.

You are right - that is the best practice. I just kept the file in there so that the model would have the correct syntax.

@texhex
Copy link
Owner

texhex commented Mar 24, 2018

@thecatdidit Sorry, but I think the first sentence exceeds my knowledge of the English language (I'm no native speaker).

Does this mean that both settings are supported by 9480m and would not be a problem to enable them out-of-the-box? But you hadn't had any time to test them thoroughly?

@texhex
Copy link
Owner

texhex commented Mar 26, 2018

@thecatdidit Version 3.4.1 includes your changes, thanks for contributing!

@texhex texhex closed this as completed Mar 27, 2018
@thecatdidit
Copy link
Author

@texhex - Correct, sir. I didn't have time to test those settings, but they would be supported should someone change them accordingly.

@fsarnakur
Copy link

Thanks @thecatdidit (great username btw :), this looks fine to me and it will be added.

However, you have disabled both UEFI and Secure Boot in BIOS-Settings.txt:

#Boot Mode==UEFI Native (Without CSM)
#SecureBoot==Enable

Does this mean the 9480m does not support these settings or they are supported but you do not use them? If possible both settings should be one to follow Microsoft best practice.

Thanks @thecatdidit (great username btw :), this looks fine to me and it will be added.

However, you have disabled both UEFI and Secure Boot in BIOS-Settings.txt:

#Boot Mode==UEFI Native (Without CSM)
#SecureBoot==Enable

Does this mean the 9480m does not support these settings or they are supported but you do not use them? If possible both settings should be one to follow Microsoft best practice.

After setting this my laptop shows, "No bootable image found. Notebook will be shutdown."
Any solution?

@fsarnakur
Copy link

Thanks @thecatdidit (great username btw :), this looks fine to me and it will be added.

However, you have disabled both UEFI and Secure Boot in BIOS-Settings.txt:

#Boot Mode==UEFI Native (Without CSM)
#SecureBoot==Enable

Does this mean the 9480m does not support these settings or they are supported but you do not use them? If possible both settings should be one to follow Microsoft best practice.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants