Some of us discussed a rating system for supported boards during the summit in Denver earlier this year.
Jordan started the page on the wiki a while back, and I put some effort into it today:
http://www.coreboot.org/Rating_System
The idea is that boards get a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' from zero to five 'hares', based on how easy the vendor makes it for us to port coreboot to a board. We want to reward good vendor behavior, rather than punish less desirable behavior. Board vendors should strive to get more hares for their products :)
I think the rating system needs more thought, and I'd be grateful for anyone who wants to help.
In particular I'd like to see the 'Example and support code' section fleshed out a bit more; some examples of code like that and/or vendors doing the right thing would be great. I'm a little fuzzy as to what kind of code this is.
Also, the score is heavily skewed towards documentation right now (80 out of 124 points). I think that is fine but others may think otherwise.
I just made up the hackability scores - do they make sense to people? Should a JTAG header be rewarded higher than it is?
I've added a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' column on the supported motherboards page (for v3, if there is no objection I'll add it for v2 too).
I also made a sample rating page for the PC Engines Alix.1C
http://www.coreboot.org/PC_Engines_ALIX.1C_Vendor_Cooperation_Score
It would be nice to see rating pages for other boards - the Artec Group boards should score better than the Alix.1C, for instance.
Feedback very welcome. And feel free to edit away on the wiki, of course.
Thanks, Ward.
On 20.08.2008 02:26, Ward Vandewege wrote:
http://www.coreboot.org/Rating_System
The idea is that boards get a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' from zero to five 'hares', based on how easy the vendor makes it for us to port coreboot to a board. We want to reward good vendor behavior, rather than punish less desirable behavior. Board vendors should strive to get more hares for their products :)
Indeed.
I think the rating system needs more thought, and I'd be grateful for anyone who wants to help.
In particular I'd like to see the 'Example and support code' section fleshed out a bit more; some examples of code like that and/or vendors doing the right thing would be great. I'm a little fuzzy as to what kind of code this is.
New point: "Provides example code via e-mail, no NDA/license agreement required" should be equivalent to web page with click-through license or better.
"Code is freely available under a free software license. It can be downloaded on the web after agreeing to a click-through license." What happens if the click-through license is the GPL?
Also, the score is heavily skewed towards documentation right now (80 out of 124 points). I think that is fine but others may think otherwise.
I just made up the hackability scores - do they make sense to people? Should a JTAG header be rewarded higher than it is?
IIRC for some processors a JTAG header is simply not an option.
I've added a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' column on the supported motherboards page (for v3, if there is no objection I'll add it for v2 too).
I also made a sample rating page for the PC Engines Alix.1C
http://www.coreboot.org/PC_Engines_ALIX.1C_Vendor_Cooperation_Score
It would be nice to see rating pages for other boards - the Artec Group boards should score better than the Alix.1C, for instance.
Feedback very welcome. And feel free to edit away on the wiki, of course.
Nice. Thanks for working on this.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 03:20:40AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
In particular I'd like to see the 'Example and support code' section fleshed out a bit more; some examples of code like that and/or vendors doing the right thing would be great. I'm a little fuzzy as to what kind of code this is.
New point: "Provides example code via e-mail, no NDA/license agreement required" should be equivalent to web page with click-through license or better.
Fixed. The Alix.1C now has four hares!
"Code is freely available under a free software license. It can be downloaded on the web after agreeing to a click-through license." What happens if the click-through license is the GPL?
Many people seem to do this (cf. any free software install for OS X), but it does not make sense to do so - there's nothing in the GPL that requires a click-through if you want to use the software.
Also, the score is heavily skewed towards documentation right now (80 out of 124 points). I think that is fine but others may think otherwise.
I just made up the hackability scores - do they make sense to people? Should a JTAG header be rewarded higher than it is?
IIRC for some processors a JTAG header is simply not an option.
Ah, good point. Not sure what to do about that though in terms of scoring. Hrm, that hardware gets penalized a bit (5 points they can not get).
Thanks, Ward.
On 19/08/08 20:26 -0400, Ward Vandewege wrote:
Some of us discussed a rating system for supported boards during the summit in Denver earlier this year.
Jordan started the page on the wiki a while back, and I put some effort into it today:
http://www.coreboot.org/Rating_System
The idea is that boards get a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' from zero to five 'hares', based on how easy the vendor makes it for us to port coreboot to a board. We want to reward good vendor behavior, rather than punish less desirable behavior. Board vendors should strive to get more hares for their products :)
I think the rating system needs more thought, and I'd be grateful for anyone who wants to help.
In particular I'd like to see the 'Example and support code' section fleshed out a bit more; some examples of code like that and/or vendors doing the right thing would be great. I'm a little fuzzy as to what kind of code this is.
Also, the score is heavily skewed towards documentation right now (80 out of 124 points). I think that is fine but others may think otherwise.
I just made up the hackability scores - do they make sense to people? Should a JTAG header be rewarded higher than it is?
I've added a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' column on the supported motherboards page (for v3, if there is no objection I'll add it for v2 too).
I also made a sample rating page for the PC Engines Alix.1C
http://www.coreboot.org/PC_Engines_ALIX.1C_Vendor_Cooperation_Score
It would be nice to see rating pages for other boards - the Artec Group boards should score better than the Alix.1C, for instance.
Feedback very welcome. And feel free to edit away on the wiki, of course.
Sweet - now we just need to get all of our platforms evaluated.
Jordan
Another item.
"Simulator"
i.e. can we simulate a mainboard before we get to hardware.
Of course AMD rules the roost here too with simnow.
ron
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Jordan Crouse -
ron minnich -
Ward Vandewege