Re: [coreboot] How is depreciating 95% of coreboot boards worth it for such minor improvements?

[Piotr Król]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08/24/2017 04:31 AM, Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:29 AM, [e-mail] 
> wrote:

Hi Kyösti,

(...)
> Now, this applies to everyone: please push status updates for the 
> boards you have access to, otherwise majority of AGESA boards just
> hit that deprecation in the next cycle of board removals. Also,
> when you create a board port and you go through all the trouble of
> getting it past (my strict or someone else's less strict) review
> policy, is it REALLY that hard to run board_status script? You know
> who you are. Is there something we need to do better here? Provide
> OS boot images just for this purpose?
>
> As for binaryPI boards, those are at EARLY_CBMEM_INIT starting from
> August 2.

I'm not sure if it helps, but we can commit to test all PC Engines
platform. 3 weeks ago we obtained all ALIX platforms. Unfortunately
things like ALIX.1C are no longer in production (replaced by ALIX.1E).

Development recovery for platforms not touched for 3 years takes time.
We are confused about various pieces when trying to upload recent
board status:

1. How to handle situation when hardware was replaced by new revision ?
2. Is cbmem required ? (Geode LX do not have support for cpufreq -
cbmem complains)
3. There is seem to be some glitches in the system - not sure if
triggered by us eg. alix.6 bootlog link seems to be broken.

We feel responsible for PC Engines platforms and keeping them in
coreboot tree. Things that I think we can do better is:
1. Adding missing wiki pages for PC Engines platforms.
2. Adding people from 3mdeb as official maintainers of PC Engines
platforms - would that be accepted ?

Best Regards,
- -- 
Piotr Król
Embedded Systems Consultant
https://3mdeb.com | @3mdeb_com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE4DCbLYWmfoRjKeNLsu5x6WeqnkwFAlm1o6UACgkQsu5x6Weq
nkwMvxAAgOijbfWN9Q40h3y6XTJ67M7fe6EoZSkbM225waWnBTkDXoXMUYhpYOZ5
OvKU2bDsVrcQdcorKD7giA36/SXnDTRqdmNfCxNNmIruc+J65DIopcX3MzYUpb7S
LyA/Jnb3dQXPE3Wb14sGG7bj74keDXUsMJGIb3AG7xNEgPvBzSzEX5AuZBQzn8DJ
48ffbIzZHNLDebZw7M3q4D/pnxcEaEWm8vG6bRfpT3UHyj7iOMnKN8kpK0KGtGN5
PXT9SkqeX75D2I72eO/TzGSUSDcxbBLozWIDoeEBXZ0Hslu5blyDl9gINb7F0U5s
2SokXUEMNpokHzPP0w21j5dX0xN5yC8QqMOMDna6M6ACeNpS4+MS23DPG0bb6jwc
3yfaMpK0t1UxdArOoMdRBZdqxeemHdp9M3z+FlwWe2QonmPQXpdRWtma3ptKQgSX
4YaiCgNYj47elo9nryX4k7g5gNkNoCAcUNHnHw5Odm8tWjAf6Y5g7Kz+ZqCaWsdL
uZlDbNnEYkOUHZ8amZYIEB1cgMHebF+ESaO4fhgcdQUdGWBirB96+Lnmgjxiqw2x
fbuwlt8vA1gS77VDJ1lU3GqO0XQnYfRscEXv7AJdmzIbmOexnnB0sAhUCt71BANV
qcBNZ7qcGV7o+BPZgtl78r5xpNdKIopEjb09ZcBx/qjcnVyAQjY=
=qiF7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

How is depreciating 95% of coreboot boards worth it for such minor improvements?

[David Hendricks]

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Piotr Król  wrote:
> Is cbmem required ? (Geode LX do not have support for cpufreq -
>
> cbmem complains)

Yes, though hopefully we can patch cbmem to deal with this. I am only
guessing but it seems it will fail in arch_tick_frequency()? Is there a way
of differentiating Geode from other architectures and determining ticks per
second?
> There is seem to be some glitches in the system - not sure if
>
> triggered by us eg. alix.6 bootlog link seems to be broken.

More details will help.
> We feel responsible for PC Engines platforms and keeping them in
> coreboot tree.

Excellent to hear!
> Things that I think we can do better is:
> Adding missing wiki pages for PC Engines platforms.

Go to the wiki, click "Log In", and request an account from the admins.

2. Adding people from 3mdeb as official maintainers of PC Engines
> platforms - would that be accepted ?

Maintainers will certainly be good to mention on the wiki page, once
created :-)