On 1/26/20, 11:32 AM, "Nico Huber" email@example.com wrote:
On 26.01.20 20:15, David Hendricks wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 4:44 PM Nico Huber firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: >> There are currently two new platforms in development that seem to >> have trouble with public binaries (which would be necessary to make >> the code useful to the coreboot community). Namely, AMD/Picasso and >> Intel/Skylake-SP. Support for the former is already partially rotting >> on our master branch. Shouldn't we discuss their fate before more >> resources are wasted? > > I happen to know that for the latter the whole point of uploading it > in its current state was to get some feedback. The authors gave a live > demo of it last fall at the OCP Summit in Europe and wanted to finally > get some code published, which itself was quite a feat. > > As for their fate, I think we need to look forward and not just > backward. The code was pushed upstream with the intent of being used > in real products and not just for the fun of putting a bunch of > unusable code on display and making peoples' lives difficult. It also > serves as a starting point for future work. > > That said, it's fair to say that if nothing uses that code then > perhaps it should be removed from the master branch. In Picasso's > case, there is a mainboard in progress (CB:33772), and given the > timeline I suspect there was a previous board that got cancelled > (stuff doesn't always go as planned...). In Skylake-SP and Tioga Pass > case, the hardware already exists and is in production but the blob > situation might prevent it from being usable by the community, but the > code is already being used as a starting point for the next generation > platform.
sounds like good progress. Though, you make it look like SKL-SP support is just a code drop. If there is no intention to get it into shape and working with upstream coreboot, together with the community, should we merge it? Jonathan seems to work hard to clean the patches "formally into shape" (i.e. fixing checkpatch issues), but that's not all that matters, is it?
It is NOT just a code drop. It is backed up by a huge commitment, multi-company collaboration and a long term roadmap. For some context, please refer to  and . The intention of this upstream is to get reviews from the community, and in turn to enable the community to work on coreboot support for Xeon Scalable Processors based servers, with this patch set as a start point.
Nico _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- email@example.com To unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org