On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:44:49 -0500, "Corey Osgood" <corey.osgood@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org
wrote:
Just curious, with all the support from AMD, how come no one ever
ventured
down the Athlon XP road? Athlon XP setups are very cheap these days, possibly making development cost effective???
The Athlon XP, and most/all chipsets supporting it, are EOL, therefore
not
a good option from a manufacturer design standpoint, so I wouldn't expect someone to contract a port any time soon. AMD is making the best of their available resources by supporting the K8 and AMD690 chipset, which had
not
reached EOL when work started on the port but I think it may have now. Also, the K7 datasheets are not publically available (last I looked), probably because of details about whatever made them kick P4 ass back in the day
:D
The datasheets on Via KT333/400 chipsets are available online, but not from Via, so I'm not sure of their legallity (you would almost certainly not get that datasheet from Via themselves). I don't know if AMD has any of their K7 chipset docs available online.
That's too bad. I have a few of these kicking around and your right, they did kick P4 ass back in the day. Hmm, although we spend alot of time with discontinued Intel chips that have limited to null support,
You mean 440bx, i810, etc? Those have publically available docs for the processor, north, and southbridge, and SDRAM init is, comparatively, extremely simple. And i945 is still being used on some embedded boards.
why not a discontinued AMD chip? I'm sure a few of the AMD developers on boards have some knowlage in this area.....
IMO, I'd much rather see them working on the latest K8 chipset then K7 stuff, no offense. I'd much rather put coreboot on my next desktop then my last one.
-Corey