Hi,
the statistics below are either a sign of v3 being completed or a sign of v3 being a neglected target. I find both of these scenarios rather frightening. What follows is the number of commits per month since the initial checkin.
1 2008-07 4 2008-06 15 2008-05 25 2008-04 21 2008-03 56 2008-02 28 2008-01 9 2007-12 24 2007-11 7 2007-10 16 2007-09 22 2007-08 38 2007-07 88 2007-06 42 2007-05 25 2007-04 110 2007-03 95 2007-02 12 2007-01 5 2006-12 18 2006-11 31 2006-10
Last month we reached an all-time low and it doesn't really look better for this month.
I'll gladly review v3 patches if that helps. If anyone has pending v3 patches, please send them in.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
I would be willing to bet that a lot of that patch activity was me, and I've been pulled away to other things. We need more people involved. It is true that the path of least resistance is v2 -- it's here and it works. But we need people to take the hard path and get on v3. I can tell you, that once you get going on it, you won't want to go back. v3 is really nice.
I guess v2 works too well :-)
ron
On 08/07/08 08:21 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
I would be willing to bet that a lot of that patch activity was me, and I've been pulled away to other things. We need more people involved. It is true that the path of least resistance is v2 -- it's here and it works. But we need people to take the hard path and get on v3. I can tell you, that once you get going on it, you won't want to go back. v3 is really nice.
I guess v2 works too well :-)
Here's the problem. Based on the number of email and IRC requests, it is clear that RS690/SB600 code is in great demand. And right behind that we hear clamoring for RS780/SB700 and Barcelona B3. We currently have two choices - we can go for V3, which would give us big style points but our fans will probably be disappointed while we spend the time to iron out the wrinkles. Or we can go for V2 and run the risk of continuing to prop up the legacy code. Our hope is that eventually v3 will catch up with us, and we can seamlessly switch to v3 for some future chipset or processor.
Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to do both, and you will forgive us if we go the path of least resistance for our customers. I think that most every other commercial vendor in this project faces the same dilemma. The solution is to recruit a new generation of developers who are willing to take the time and effort of moving our primary processors and chipsets to v3 and stabilizing it to the point where the customers can reliably move. This has already happened for the most part for the Geode LX with positive results. Once we solve the few remaining warts, then there would be no reason to use V2 for LX.
Speaking strictly for myself, I do think that v3 is the way to go, and we look forward to when we can recommend it to our customers. But we just can't justify the extra time and effort at this point, and judging from the emails asking for SB600 code, neither can you.
Jordan
PS: And I apologize personally for doing more to damage v3 and LAR then any other three developers - I mean well, I promise! :)
On 08.07.2008 17:44, Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 08/07/08 08:21 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
I would be willing to bet that a lot of that patch activity was me, and I've been pulled away to other things. We need more people involved. It is true that the path of least resistance is v2 -- it's here and it works. But we need people to take the hard path and get on v3. I can tell you, that once you get going on it, you won't want to go back. v3 is really nice.
I guess v2 works too well :-)
Here's the problem. Based on the number of email and IRC requests, it is clear that RS690/SB600 code is in great demand. And right behind that we hear clamoring for RS780/SB700 and Barcelona B3. We currently have two choices - we can go for V3, which would give us big style points but our fans will probably be disappointed while we spend the time to iron out the wrinkles. Or we can go for V2 and run the risk of continuing to prop up the legacy code. Our hope is that eventually v3 will catch up with us, and we can seamlessly switch to v3 for some future chipset or processor.
Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to do both, and you will forgive us if we go the path of least resistance for our customers. I think that most every other commercial vendor in this project faces the same dilemma.
And I am immensely thankful that AMD is creating support for new chipsets. More supported chipsets mean more users which means more developers (to some extent). This indirectly benefits v3, so a big "thank you" from me.
The solution is to recruit a new generation of developers who are willing to take the time and effort of moving our primary processors and chipsets to v3 and stabilizing it to the point where the customers can reliably move. This has already happened for the most part for the Geode LX with positive results. Once we solve the few remaining warts, then there would be no reason to use V2 for LX.
Fully agreed.
Speaking strictly for myself, I do think that v3 is the way to go, and we look forward to when we can recommend it to our customers. But we just can't justify the extra time and effort at this point, and judging from the emails asking for SB600 code, neither can you.
I'm happy with the priorities you outline and hope we'll reach the "customer recommendable" milestone soon.
PS: And I apologize personally for doing more to damage v3 and LAR then any other three developers - I mean well, I promise! :)
Stirring things up is a great way to get people thinking about the grand scheme of things. You invested a lot of time analyzing LAR and the SELF proposal was a great way to advance our understanding of it. Although no commits resulted from it, I see your actions as very beneficial, not damaging. I hope to prepare a proposal incorporating your SELF design together with a slightly modified LAR design in the next few weeks.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On 08.07.2008 17:21, ron minnich wrote:
I would be willing to bet that a lot of that patch activity was me,
Yes, roughly 28% of the number of commits are yours. I haven't counted number of lines yet.
and I've been pulled away to other things.
Can we help you avoid these distractions? ;-) Non-coreboot things are overrated :-P
We need more people involved.
Absolutely. I have been invited to talk about coreboot at my local LUG and hope this will give some additional exposure. Apart from that, the OpenExpo booth at the end of September should work nicely as well.
It is true that the path of least resistance is v2 -- it's here and it works. But we need people to take the hard path and get on v3. I can tell you, that once you get going on it, you won't want to go back. v3 is really nice.
Same here. I have barely touched v2 in the last year.
I guess v2 works too well :-)
And there are perceived issues about v3 (X lockup, IRQ routing) where I personally don't know if they are still there because I gave my alix1c tp Peter and he installed it at a zoo where it plays frog sounds...
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Hi,
the statistics below are either a sign of v3 being completed or a sign of v3 being a neglected target.
Last month we reached an all-time low and it doesn't really look better for this month.
I'll gladly review v3 patches if that helps. If anyone has pending v3 patches, please send them in.
Can someone familiar with V3 please spend maybe just a couple of hours writing up a V2 --> V3 porting guide?
This may help someone interested in taking some working V2 chipsets into V3.
-Bari
On 08.07.2008 18:25, bari wrote:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Hi,
the statistics below are either a sign of v3 being completed or a sign of v3 being a neglected target.
Last month we reached an all-time low and it doesn't really look better for this month.
I'll gladly review v3 patches if that helps. If anyone has pending v3 patches, please send them in.
Can someone familiar with V3 please spend maybe just a couple of hours writing up a V2 --> V3 porting guide?
The v3 design doc in the v3 tree should explain the v3 architecture and IIRC it even has a section on porting experience. However, some stuff has changed since the doc was updated, so it's a great starter, but not necessarily complete. You can find it at coreboot-v3/doc/design/newboot.lyx or at http://www.coreboot.org/images/0/0a/Newboot.pdf
This may help someone interested in taking some working V2 chipsets into V3.
I hope to tackle this soon based on your feedback about the design doc.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
-
bari -
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Jordan Crouse -
ron minnich