We've always deprecated platforms. And they're still in tree --  you
can build for DEC Alpha if you want. There's no shame in not being in
the latest release.

Given unlimited time and money and people, we could fix all the
problems. We live in a world of limits, and must do what we can with
the resources we have.

Nobody is stopping anyone from cleaning up the AGESA code. But it's
been about 10 years since it came in, and such cleanup has yet to
happen.

We should move forward with the resource allocator, and if a board
can't work with v4, and nobody is willing to do the work, that board
should be left out of new releases. Having v3 and v4 both in-tree is
not a viable long term strategy.

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:43 AM Nico Huber <nico.h@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 01.12.21 15:57, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> > Thank you, these seem to be good points. However, in regards to:
> >
> >> If you have any hope of open-source coreboot for newer platforms, you shouldn't make it harder for coreboot to advance.
> >
> > Where to advance? Are there any "newer platforms" that are as worthy
> > as the "older platforms":
>
> Not sure how to compare that, nobody has written native coreboot code
> for the platforms that you deem worthy either. Also, ...
>
> > 1) as secure: no Intel ME / AMD PSP "security" co-processors, which
> > are seen as harmful to real security by many ;
>
> ...open-source AGESA seems worse to me. In theory one could review it,
> but did anyone? AIUI, it even provides runtime code for the OS (ACPI
> DSDT), i.e. tells the OS what to do.
>
> So what you call "real security" seems more like wishful security to
> me. Presence of ME or PSP does not provide a security issue per se. It
> depends on your threat model and if they are your weakest spot. There
> are plenty of controllers even in older machines that run code from ROM
> masks. What's the difference? Can we trust vendors with code in ROM
> masks but not with code in flash? These are subtle considerations. So
> far, it doesn't make older hardware more attractive to me.
>
> Did I mention that at least one of the pre-PSP platforms already has
> a PSP, just hidden? Ok, I admit I didn't look at the silicon to check,
> but it's common that a silicon vendor puts new stuff early into chips
> to test it. So it seems very likely to be true. We generally don't
> know what exactly lives in these chips. I rather trust what I can see.
>
> > 2) as affordable: the older devices are possible to get used for like
> > $100-$200. Meanwhile - because of Boot Guard etc. - the "newer
> > platforms" are unlikely to have coreboot without vendor's involvement,
> > who will gladly charge a big extra for "coreboot support".
>
> Last time I checked BootGuard wasn't a big issue, i.e. not so many
> devices ship with it. Did that change?
>
> Devices sold today will be as affordable tomorrow (well, on a slightly
> larger timescale). What's your point?
>
> > 3) as available: these generic consumer electronics, which have been
> > shipped with a proprietary UEFI but got coreboot support later, have a
> > huge numbers all over the world - compared to the quite limited
> > availability of newer coreboot platforms.
>
> I don't understand this point either. This will change, earth keeps
> turning, right? Also, I'm quite sure that your numbers are wrong
> anyway. Please check how many Chromebooks are sold, for instance.
> These, are sold by people who actually support the project btw.
>
> >
> > Sorry, I don't see any "newer platforms" which would match the "older
> > platforms" on these critically-important points.
>
> You seem to be too much used to look behind. Please look ahead from
> time to time. And regarding security, don't trust what you read on
> the internet. It's far more subtle than non-PSP is secure, PSP is
> insecure.
>
> Also, it's not about old vs. new hardware anyway. There's much older
> hardware than the AGESA ports that will stay maintained. It's about
> hardware that nobody took the time to write a proper, long-term main-
> tainable coreboot for. And I can't blame anyone for it. Everything
> AMD Bulldozer based always seemed like the most unattractive hard-
> ware to me.
>
> > So it doesn't seem reasonable to drop the "crappy code" of "older
> > platforms" in favor of the "beautiful code" of "newer platforms", if
> > they could never become as worthy.
>
> You made it clear that they are worthy to *you* (even your arguments
> seem extremely fragile, so maybe that changed), so you are free to look
> after their code. Why not start with that instead of complaining that
> nobody else does it for you?
>
> >
> > Well, maybe some corporation sees their newer platform as "more
> > worthy" - despite it's losing on all 3 points above and there are
> > blobs-over-blobs. But they can't speak for the community of opensource
> > hobbyists all over the world, people like you and me. And pleasing the
> > corporations by easing their "burden" - while dropping the "older
> > platforms" which are more worthy - doesn't seem wise, at least to
> > me...
>
> You are blaming and talking to the wrong people. Deprecating old code
> was always driven by the most libre developers in this community, FWIW.
> They shoulder the hard work to keep the code base maintainable, so I
> think they should decide what is worthy and what isn't (hopefully not
> based on some weak, wishful arguments).
>
> Keeping the code clean makes life easier for other people too, sure, but
> that's what happens when people work together on a project.
>
> Nico
> _______________________________________________
> coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
_______________________________________________
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org