>> and we'll have to find a maintainable solution (some
>> trial-by-error code that already nobody understands when
>> merging is not what I'd consider maintainable).
> Nico, could you please clarify what exact parts of my/HJK patches are still unclear? If "running two OptionROMs" part is raising the questions, I will happily change it to "run for iGPU only" - actually HJK original patches were already done this way. If "already existing code for MULTIPLE_VGA_ADAPTERS" part - I have fulfilled your testing requests at this message https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/31448#message-86a7c4f33a958847d16f9ae5a239b20b37054023 . And I already replied why "VFCT for dGPU instead of iGPU" and many other things. It just seems to me that nobody read my new messages under CB:31448 (sorry if "TLDR"), and all this is really disappointing - got more hardware working but nobody is happy :-(
I don't recall mentioning anything to be unclear. In fact,
I still didn't look at most of the patches. IMHO, it's not
worth to review before the ground work it done. And that
is to figure out what is supposed to work and not what does
work. Your/HJK's whole solution seems to be based on trial-
by-error, which means it might just work by chance and with
the next kernel update it may break. To prevent that, we
need to figure out how exactly AMD intended it to work. And
if there is no public spec, then the OS driver's source is
the only spec and we have to read that. This is how core-
boot development works. I'm sorry that it's not all fun.
I have read your reply on the other thread and considered
to investigate further today. But with already the second
angree message that I write today, I have to postpone this
to next week (better ping me, I might forget about it). So
above all you'll need patience to get your changes upstream.
And please stop arguing that it already works. We know that.
Upstream development is not only about having something work
but also about getting new things to work without dragging
too much maintenance burden. Your device works, that's nice.
But will you help everytime somebody is confused about code
in `device/pci_rom.c`? Probably not. If we'd just merge
every patch that "works", soon nothing would work anymore,
because things affect each other upstream and nobody would
still want to fix things in confusing, unreadable code.
I have no idea what makes you think that we'll all work
24/7 on your review. It takes time. When we don't reply
to a comment, then most likely because we didn't have the
time to do so. Speaking of work, Patrick just did the right
thing and looked into the Linux driver. I assume, he wasn't
paid for it. He probably just worked for you for free and
your reaction seemed to be disappointment with the results.
So, to sum it up, you are not willing to look into things
for yourself, you don't pay people, you don't inspire them,
you get upset when people don't do what you expect them
to do. It seems pretty clear to me why your patches "have
not been received well".
My personal roadmap on this issue is (and yes it may take weeks):
One question that would make this easier: Is the AMD dGPU
supposed to work alone? i.e. are any display connectors
attached (or muxable) to it? or does it only work as a
computation accelerator for the iGPU?
To view, visit change 31502. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.