Hi all,
I just noticed that there is a seemingly abandoned board that creates a lot of maintenance burden for coreboot, also because it's using FSP UPDs that are not present in the upstream header files.
Does anybody still care about Intel/Strago? If not, I'd prefer to drop it immediately. It's only a reference board, so likely never had many users.
If somebody at Intel still cares about coreboot support for this board, please have a look at this issue [1].
Nico
I am not sure how many of receiver still working at Intel or still working in chrome team, but I think that's okay abandon support for Strago.
Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de 于2019年4月13日周六 上午6:59写道：
Hi all,
I just noticed that there is a seemingly abandoned board that creates a lot of maintenance burden for coreboot, also because it's using FSP UPDs that are not present in the upstream header files.
Does anybody still care about Intel/Strago? If not, I'd prefer to drop it immediately. It's only a reference board, so likely never had many users.
If somebody at Intel still cares about coreboot support for this board, please have a look at this issue [1].
Nico
[1] https://github.com/IntelFsp/FSP/issues/14 _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
one thing we don't want to is change however is 'Intel_Strago' as the default mainboard family for google/cyan variants, since at least one Braswell platform kernel driver uses that identifier to enable certain quirks
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:45 PM Lance Zhao lance.zhao@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure how many of receiver still working at Intel or still working in chrome team, but I think that's okay abandon support for Strago.
Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de 于2019年4月13日周六 上午6:59写道：
Hi all,
I just noticed that there is a seemingly abandoned board that creates a lot of maintenance burden for coreboot, also because it's using FSP UPDs that are not present in the upstream header files.
Does anybody still care about Intel/Strago? If not, I'd prefer to drop it immediately. It's only a reference board, so likely never had many users.
If somebody at Intel still cares about coreboot support for this board, please have a look at this issue [1].
Nico
[1] https://github.com/IntelFsp/FSP/issues/14 _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
I would also like to chime in here…
Just because it might appear that nobody is using a board solution doesn’t mean nobody is using it. We use several Intel reference board coreboot solutions since we generally have (or can get) the corresponding boards from Intel, but the community in general probably isn’t aware that we are using those solutions. We get projects all the time that are ultimately a port from an Intel reference board, so having the reference implementation in coreboot is key for that effort. So, although we aren’t *currently* using this particular reference board for anything, I would prefer to see that all of the Intel reference board implementations remain unless there’s a really good reason to remove them, since we could get a project where we would like to use the reference board implementation as a baseline at any time.
As for the issue you noted, I’ll see if I can get someone at Intel to look at it. I agree that it is problematic when what’s on the public FSP GitHub isn’t the latest version of the FSP and headers and such that people are actually using. This should defiantly be corrected.
- Jay
Jay Talbott Principal Consulting Engineer SysPro Consulting, LLC 3057 E. Muirfield St. Gilbert, AZ 85298 (480) 704-8045 (480) 445-9895 (FAX) JayTalbott@sysproconsulting.com
http://www.sysproconsulting.com http://www.sysproconsulting.com/
From: Matt DeVillier [mailto:matt.devillier@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 1:38 PM To: Nico Huber Cc: coreboot Subject: [coreboot] Re: Removal of mainboard Intel/Strago
one thing we don't want to is change however is 'Intel_Strago' as the default mainboard family for google/cyan variants, since at least one Braswell platform kernel driver uses that identifier to enable certain quirks
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:45 PM Lance Zhao lance.zhao@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure how many of receiver still working at Intel or still working in chrome team, but I think that's okay abandon support for Strago.
Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de 于2019年4月13日周六 上午6:59写道：
Hi all,
I just noticed that there is a seemingly abandoned board that creates a lot of maintenance burden for coreboot, also because it's using FSP UPDs that are not present in the upstream header files.
Does anybody still care about Intel/Strago? If not, I'd prefer to drop it immediately. It's only a reference board, so likely never had many users.
If somebody at Intel still cares about coreboot support for this board, please have a look at this issue [1].
Nico
[1] https://github.com/IntelFsp/FSP/issues/14 _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
_______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
-
Jay Talbott -
Lance Zhao -
Matt DeVillier -
Nico Huber