20 Sep
2019
20 Sep
'19
9:59 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:12 AM Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> wrote:
On 12.09.19 18:42, Patrick Georgi wrote:
Interesting. In terms of lines of code, probably 75% of AGESA glue
logic in ports has already been removed. But I agree, aside from
release requirements, there is lots left that could be done. There is
essentially no interest for new board ports on AGESA/binaryPI, these
platforms have mostly survived in the tree due to commercial support
to maintain them.
Kyösti Mälkki
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:20:49PM +0300, Kyösti
Mälkki wrote:
Ah, yes. I might have said something. When talking about AGESA ports,
I most probably meant the hook-up in coreboot, not the vendorcode/.
I usually don't look at the latter.
I would love to see a clean rewrite and assume that I proposed this
when somebody asked what could/should be done. However, I don't see
it as a requirement. Also, we have much more worrisome code in the
tree (e.g. KGPE-D16 and surrounding code, suffering from undefined
behavior, #including of .c files etc.).
Nico Would "some people" or these
"advocates" be willing to elaborate?
I CC'd Nico and Martin because I
seem to remember that we talked
about AGESA (and its quality and/or life cycle). Nico, for example,
seems to advocate scrapping AGESA to replace it with a rewrite ;-)