<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Thanks for everyone who has submitted status reports and now proved
that they work.<br>
<br>
BTW the boards devices support ASPM so you can remove the
pcie_aspm=off in your kernel command line - I like to force it on
myself with pcie_aspm=force.<br>
<br>
On 04/06/2018 09:54 PM, David Hendricks wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ_ov56cWb1JwfTKEw_pSdJhHG81=nnBHu_OMqe7AN_1x9gnxw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 3:40 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Taiidan@gmx.com">Taiidan@gmx.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Taiidan@gmx.com"><Taiidan@gmx.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Like I have said before these types of policies are eventually going to
result in coreboot only having unobtainable development boards in the
tree (that are of course not owner controlled)
It simply isn't right.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Indeed, this isn't right (as in correct) so don't spread this FUD. The
boards are still in the tree, you just need to check out whatever coreboot
version is known to actually work with the board. For example if a board
was last reported working in coreboot-4.6, then `git checkout 4.6` or
checkout a specific hash reported on the board_status repo.</pre>
</blockquote>
I swear I heard "removed from the tree" somewhere - irregardless
only unobtainable closed-source development boards will benefit from
new coreboot features.<br>
<br>
Eventually the old versions of coreboot will become non-functional
for whatever reason so it won't be that simple (ie: don't checkout
master) if one doesn't require the new features - already for
example there are various old libs that coreboot requires which are
only available *unsigned* from a single site.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ_ov56cWb1JwfTKEw_pSdJhHG81=nnBHu_OMqe7AN_1x9gnxw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">It does no good for users to have hundreds of boards in master that fail to
boot, and no good for developers who need to maintain and refactor code for
boards that nobody tests and have been abandoned.</pre>
</blockquote>
I am not complaining because some random boards from 2005 that no
one uses are being removed - this is because the last owner
controlled x86_64 boards will eventually be functionally removed
(and would have been if no one had submitted status for the D8).<br>
<br>
This isn't hundreds of boards that fail to boot - it is a few boards
that do boot - and people know that they do (as everyone can see now
that status have been submitted :D)<br>
<br>
As an example I don't mind the removal of the H8SCM because AGESA
doesn't support IOMMU and the boards are now quite expensive (and
not worth it for the money).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ_ov56cWb1JwfTKEw_pSdJhHG81=nnBHu_OMqe7AN_1x9gnxw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">There's obviously a few people on this list using the Asus boards mentioned
which is great. The issue we need to solve is getting more people to submit
test results so that this isn't a problem in the future.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Even if I didn't use mine for something important I am unable to
submit results because I refuse to provide my "real" name and am too
honest to use a fake name.<br>
</body>
</html>