Hello Nico,
After first reading of your response you sound to me as paid for by INTEL (?) intimidator... But I always do NOT follow the first impression, rather I try to read between the lines. It is, after all, the Psychology of your replies. Let me NOT go further/deeper down (this conclusion does not follow this particular reply, rather follows your general practices for quite a time on this list). ;-)
And YES, I find lot of values in/with your reply. You are, after all, very/extremely smart and dedicated guy, and I really value your efforts/answers. Please, keep trying to put my efforts down, if you find my efforts inappropriate. I asked for it, I need to cope with it. :-)
In other words, keep doing what you are doing. :-)
Let me go as short as I can be, analysing your reply, piece by piece. _______
Sigh, as you describe ongoing development details, some place like the coreboot wiki [1] might be a better place for this (though people try to abandon this particular wiki).
I released all of this effort (as complete project) as shareware. And, if you know where this whole page should be moved, please, do so. Or point to me where I should move this page. I did my best as I know it. I do not know better, so this is why I am asking people as yourself to intervene.
Before the latest additions your page looked like 80% copyright
infringement
to me, being copy-pasted verbatim from Linux kernel documentation and
mails
on this list (it's ok to quote people, but you should ask them).
No policies at all (as overall), since I already imposed GPL2 licence as this effort. It comes from Open Source, it is GPL2 or GPL3, and I did some cut/paste things there (in first paragraph). After all, I withdraw/isolated the particular source code from intel-gpu-tools to make it standalone (and to get some knowledge about GitHub, which I had NONE previously, to be frank), and I do NOT claim ownership of this tool. I paved the possibility/ability for people (and me as well) to enhance these tools in the wanted/whoever needs desired (?) direction.
This is WHY I am constantly asking this effort to be reviewed. If I need to put names from the emails, I'll do, if required. Please, do ask. Or reedit (as real names, NOT anonymous IP addresses).
I'll try to give some constructive feedback too: The page title should be "Video BIOS Table" or "Intel Video BIOS Table". It's not directly related to coreboot and having an acronym as title is pretty odd.
Agreed. But I already did it: https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Draft:INTEL_VBT_(Video_BIOS_Table)
From the very first day... ;-)
You should highlight in the introduction that it's an Intel driver spe
cific
thing. What an VBIOS is or a GOP is OT. The "Proposal for VBT name change"... that was just an idea to better describe what the VBT is, pretty odd to see my words on Wikipedia.
You know, me, being you, I'll sue myself. YES, I did here email infringement (still, I consider Coreboot email list Open). But, you do get it, in very positive way... Simply, your words of Wisdom are correct, and I wanted to make point there.
The relation to EDID doesn't look very clear. The VBT can contain modelines, yes. But that's just a minor part. Not using an EDID is not (only) a cost-cutting measure, IMHO, but rather to save the time/physical connections to read it.
What I should tell here? Hello INTEL, is anybody home in your head? Why you, INTEL, are using your OWN odd (proprietary) format making VBT entries, instead making VBT entries to to be compliant with EDID formats: EDID 1.x or 2.0 standards?
Implementation wise, you are correct. Very correct. Real Time or not, up to the GFX vendor.
In the "See also" section, I spot only one reference that really makes sense "Video BIOS".
You are very free to fix it. Please, do so. I'll have only one request here. Not as IP address/anonymous, rather as Nico Huber. :-) _______
You are all welcome to add/delete/modify these pages.
Thank you, Zoran Stojsavljevic _______
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
On 11.05.2017 11:29, Zoran Stojsavljevic wrote:
Hello Community,
Here is the request for reviewing the latest and greatest WIKI
Coreboot/VBT:
Sigh, as you describe ongoing development details, some place like the coreboot wiki [1] might be a better place for this (though people try to abandon this particular wiki). Before the latest additions your page looked like 80% copyright infringement to me, being copy-pasted verba- tim from Linux kernel documentation and mails on this list (it's ok to quote people, but you should ask them).
I'll try to give some constructive feedback too: The page title should be "Video BIOS Table" or "Intel Video BIOS Table". It's not directly related to coreboot and having an acronym as title is pretty odd.
You should highlight in the introduction that it's an Intel driver spe- cific thing. What an VBIOS is or a GOP is OT. The "Proposal for VBT name change"... that was just an idea to better describe what the VBT is, pretty odd to see my words on Wikipedia.
The relation to EDID doesn't look very clear. The VBT can contain mode- lines, yes. But that's just a minor part. Not using an EDID is not (only) a cost-cutting measure, IMHO, but rather to save the time / phy- sical connections to read it.
In the "See also" section, I spot only one reference that really makes sense "Video BIOS".
Nico