Change in coreboot[master]: soc/intel/tigerlake: Do initial SoC commit

[Nico Huber (Code Review)]

Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36087 )

Change subject: soc/intel/tigerlake: Do initial SoC commit
......................................................................

Patch Set 8:
> > Oooops, I think people are talking past each other here.
> >
> > Subrata, nobody suggested that we shouldn't create a tigerlake/
> > directory, we should!
> >
> > Arthur, nobody suggested to review this patch. I assume Subrata
> > deliberately ignores our development guidelines and wants this
> > rubber-stamped.
> >
> > Our problem is not with the introduction of 8k LOC for Tigerlake.
> > Sure, more common code would be nice, but we understand that it's
> > not the best time. The problem is that you want to skip review.
> > Which multiplies future maintenance effort, just to save somebody
> > some days to write proper commits. That's very harmful for the
> > project as a whole. Without a reasonable commit history (from
> > which one can tell if a piece of code was reviewed for a particular
> > piece of silicon) maintenance cost increase so heavily that it
> > delays future work like more common code and eventually also
> > the next SoC generation. It also increases the regression rate,
> > it wastes resources on bug hunting, ... A broken Git history is a
> > technical debt that can only be repaid by starting from scratch.
> > I doubt that is the plan here.
> >
> > So, instead of adding 8k LOC at once and unreviewed, we want you
> > to add the code topic by topic, and let it be reviewed commit by
> > commit. That shouldn't be hard. Just take the current state you
> > have achieved, throw everything away that isn't validated yet,
> > and put what is left into smaller, reviewable commits. Please!
>
> its reasonable to add code block by block but end of 50+ CL then we will see ultimately we have same 8K LOC in TGL as existed today in ICL.

How would that be possible after the code has been reviewed?
As I said a few times already, we don't want you to skip
review.
> rather can we have areas identified as arthur has mentioned should be good to fix in ICL code itself then copy into TGL ?

Sounds good to me as long as you don't skip review anywhere.