Hi,
in the progress of restructuring coreboot to work with CBFS, Kconfig and other new features, we basically broke the PowerPC boards. Since none of us has any of the supported hardware available for testing, and there is no real reason to use coreboot on PowerPC processors (there are fine bootloaders, like u-boot), we have been discussing to drop the PowerPC port completely if nobody is willing to step up and revive it. Comments?
Stefan
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
we have been discussing to drop the PowerPC port completely if nobody is willing to step up and revive it. Comments?
The old revs will still be there.
In a way I think this is fine for all boards. Unless someone does the work to update soon, there's no point in keeping broken ports around.
//Peter
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
we have been discussing to drop the PowerPC port completely if nobody is willing to step up and revive it. Comments?
The old revs will still be there.
In a way I think this is fine for all boards. Unless someone does the work to update soon, there's no point in keeping broken ports around.
//Peter
I agree, We should probably try to have a "last known working version" in the supported boards list on the wiki.
Marc
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Marc Jonesmarcj303@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, We should probably try to have a "last known working version" in the supported boards list on the wiki.
agree. Let's clean out the attic. It makes it easier for people to focus on the boards we do have.
ron
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:35:57AM -0600, Marc Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
we have been discussing to drop the PowerPC port completely if nobody is willing to step up and revive it. Comments?
The old revs will still be there.
In a way I think this is fine for all boards. Unless someone does the work to update soon, there's no point in keeping broken ports around.
//Peter
I agree,
Ditto. For PowerPC and ARM and MIPS u-boot and other bootloaders are better suited and already work and are maintained etc...
We should probably try to have a "last known working version" in the supported boards list on the wiki.
Hm, dunno, if the boards are removed from svn we could also remove them from the wiki table completely (or put them in a "supported in earlier revisions" table somewhere else, in case somebody may want to resurrect them).
Uwe.
Uwe Hermann wrote:
We should probably try to have a "last known working version" in the supported boards list on the wiki.
Hm, dunno, if the boards are removed from svn we could also remove them from the wiki table completely (or put them in a "supported in earlier revisions" table somewhere else, in case somebody may want to resurrect them).
Good idea. We might want to put the v1 and v3 only boards there, too..
On 10.09.2009 09:12, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
in the progress of restructuring coreboot to work with CBFS, Kconfig and other new features, we basically broke the PowerPC boards. Since none of us has any of the supported hardware available for testing, and there is no real reason to use coreboot on PowerPC processors (there are fine bootloaders, like u-boot), we have been discussing to drop the PowerPC port completely if nobody is willing to step up and revive it.
I remember some people talking about MIPS64 support for coreboot, and having _working_ PowerPC support in coreboot might help us to keep the general coreboot design mostly architecture-independent. However, since PowerPC support is essentially untestable without supported hardware, we don't even know if it is (or was) broken and thus it serves no purpose except holding development back.
Drop it unless someone has the hardware and the skills to at least keep PowerPC support working with some help from others. In case someone magically appears, we can still dig up the old code from svn.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 10.09.2009 09:12, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
in the progress of restructuring coreboot to work with CBFS, Kconfig and other new features, we basically broke the PowerPC boards. Since none of us has any of the supported hardware available for testing, and there is no real reason to use coreboot on PowerPC processors (there are fine bootloaders, like u-boot), we have been discussing to drop the PowerPC port completely if nobody is willing to step up and revive it.
I remember some people talking about MIPS64 support for coreboot, and having _working_ PowerPC support in coreboot might help us to keep the general coreboot design mostly architecture-independent.
Unfortunately, those people never even showed up on the mailing list to ask questions, so I doubt it's ever going to happen.
However, since PowerPC support is essentially untestable without supported hardware, we don't even know if it is (or was) broken and thus it serves no purpose except holding development back.
It compiles, but it basically can not work as it is now, sadly.
Drop it unless someone has the hardware and the skills to at least keep PowerPC support working with some help from others. In case someone magically appears, we can still dig up the old code from svn.
Full ack.
Stefan
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Marc Jones -
Peter Stuge -
ron minnich -
Stefan Reinauer -
Uwe Hermann