On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Merlin Büge <toni@bluenox07.de> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:45:49 +0300
> Kyösti Mälkki <kyosti.malkki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I hear you and weigh your opinion according to the number of commits I
>> can recognize you have authored on the repo.
>
> I just want to mention:
> Generally, helping out with documentation and (especially) code review
> and even ordinary users who report bugs are also a value-add to the
> coreboot project.
>

Agreed and Talidan should not get offended by previous comment. I get way more rude and personal in some of my reviews towards commercial vendors. Apologies for that.

Just recently, cases of RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE=n started to fail to boot certain payload builds. The accumulated developers time it took to bisect, discuss and come up with a sub-standard solution for that; should I say 8 hours across 5 active developers. That time is better spent elsewhere, I consider the discussion of why we deprecate older boards from master just not productive at all.

Notice that even the little details Matthias provided earlier already moves us forwards.

The criteria I listed was my personal wishlist as flipping to RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE=y has proven to be quite easy and the remaining platforms are:

northbridge/amd/amdfam10

northbridge/amd/lx          <- waiting for EARLY_CBMEM_INIT
northbridge/intel/i440bx    <- already tested
northbridge/via/vx900       <- I know competent person to do this
soc/intel/fsp_baytrail      <- I have hardware and know person to double-check

soc/intel/fsp_broadwell_de <- I know competent person to do this

Kyösti