<html><head></head><body>BTW does anybody now if IOMMU ever has worked on F2A85M.<br>Its kinda frustrating that there is nobody who seems to use this board.<br>is it maybe only broken on the richland core since i use a A8-6600K<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Am 12. November 2018 00:46:26 MEZ schrieb Nico Huber <nico.h@gmx.de>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On 11/11/18 2:52 PM, echelon@free.fr wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">So by force of circumstances, unfortunately, we can expect that the<br>g505s (of other agesa based boards) will indeed be dropped from the<br>coreboot master in the near future..<br></blockquote><br>That's not what I said or intended to say (we might know if ppl.<br>wouldn't top post). I meant things may always be removed if not pro-<br>perly maintained, and that the AGESA code is one of these areas. It<br>wouldn't even be the first thing I'd drop, if I ever start to drop<br>things.<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">We (the owners of agesa based boards) need to prepare for this<br>eventuality, and maybe if we want to keep coreboot alive (and evolving)<br>on our platforms we should consider a fork... Please don't insult me<br>for this for this reasoning (it is not even a proposal..), but we must<br>face the reality..<br></blockquote><br>Hmmm... I remember when these discussions around "board removals" from<br>the master branch started, we tried to make clear that development of<br>these boards could continue on other branches. These boards wouldn't get<br>the latest and greatest features any more but instead would not be<br>broken trying to add the latest features ;) That seems much better and<br>easier to handle than a port but was mostly rejected.<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">One problem I notice is that almost all the experts in the coreboot<br>comunity are focusing on Intel platforms nowadays (for professional<br>reasons I suppose..).<br></blockquote><br>That's not what I see. There are a lot of young non-professionals (or<br>at least not employed for coreboot work) who start to work on coreboot.<br>They mostly end up working with Intel hardware too. Code quality might<br>be an issue. Compared to the better maintained open-source Intel code,<br>AGESA is much harder to read, some AMD code barely readable. The diver-<br>gence of AMD code might also be an issue. The Intel code all looks the<br>same and is easy to get into; if you read and understood one platform,<br>you understand the half of all Intel platforms in coreboot. For AMD<br>there are sometimes different implementations even for a single chip.<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">So when "the push come to shove", it will be hard<br> for us newbs (yes Im an eternal newb in coreboot.. ;-)) to get advice<br> and support in our maintaining efforts..<br></blockquote><br>AMD might be harder to configure than Intel, I'm not sure. But! there is<br>public documentation for a lot of the older platforms. It's likely not<br>complete but should be good enough to design the code. With some luck<br>you'd only need to look into AGESA to fill the gaps.<br><br>Nico<br></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>