I strongly disagree with this branching "solution". Why? Because - if building all the targets is slow - then just don't build all the targets at once! If you need a fast build and you are not concerned about AMD boards - just because you don't have any - it is always possible to skip AGESA build without moving it to a branch and separating from the rest of the coreboot code . So this is seen as a really bad excuse
Best regards, Vladimir Shipovalov
On 3 November 2015 at 01:14, Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
Alex G. wrote:
users of AGESA can continue to contribute and work on the codebase.
... and diverge...
And that's expected. Convergence is a dream.
I disagree. I think it's a goal rather than a dream.
AGESA boards use BuildOpts for configuration, and not much Kconfig/devicetree.cb
I've done a bit of work on moving BuildOpts config for IDS into Kconfig, but it's not quite ready yet. I wrote the change dry and the only test data I have available reports coreboot not working after applying it. :) Sometime..
SPD parsing routines. I can go on and on. non-divergence is a moot point.
I disagree - I think we need to work towards less divergence rather than move in a direction which is likely to create more divergence.
That's the only way to keep the codebase maintainable - which we all want. It was clear to me already when we saw the very first code from AMD that integration into our own codebase would take a while.
I don't want to remove contributed code until we've given that a real shot.
//Peter
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot