Some of us discussed a rating system for supported boards during the summit in Denver earlier this year.
Jordan started the page on the wiki a while back, and I put some effort into it today:
http://www.coreboot.org/Rating_System
The idea is that boards get a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' from zero to five 'hares', based on how easy the vendor makes it for us to port coreboot to a board. We want to reward good vendor behavior, rather than punish less desirable behavior. Board vendors should strive to get more hares for their products :)
I think the rating system needs more thought, and I'd be grateful for anyone who wants to help.
In particular I'd like to see the 'Example and support code' section fleshed out a bit more; some examples of code like that and/or vendors doing the right thing would be great. I'm a little fuzzy as to what kind of code this is.
Also, the score is heavily skewed towards documentation right now (80 out of 124 points). I think that is fine but others may think otherwise.
I just made up the hackability scores - do they make sense to people? Should a JTAG header be rewarded higher than it is?
I've added a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' column on the supported motherboards page (for v3, if there is no objection I'll add it for v2 too).
I also made a sample rating page for the PC Engines Alix.1C
http://www.coreboot.org/PC_Engines_ALIX.1C_Vendor_Cooperation_Score
It would be nice to see rating pages for other boards - the Artec Group boards should score better than the Alix.1C, for instance.
Feedback very welcome. And feel free to edit away on the wiki, of course.
Thanks, Ward.