Intel Quark - a quick update

[Andy Pont]

Thanks to the generosity of members of the list there are two Intel 
Galileo boards, a Gen 1 and Gen 2, on their way to me which should 
arrive towards the end of the month.

As soon as they get here I will start testing the various configs to see 
what works and what is broken.

-Andy.

[Peter Stuge]

Andy Pont wrote:
> As soon as they get here I will start testing the various configs
> to see what works and what is broken.

Many thanks to you and everyone who helped make this happen!

//Peter

[Felix Singer]

On Fri, 2022-04-22 at 08:22 +0000, Andy Pont wrote:
> Thanks to the generosity of members of the list there are two Intel 
> Galileo boards, a Gen 1 and Gen 2, on their way to me which should 
> arrive towards the end of the month.
>
> As soon as they get here I will start testing the various configs to
> see what works and what is broken.
>
> -Andy.

So, will you also step up as a maintainer for it?

// Felix

[Andy Pont]

Felix wrote...
> So, will you also step up as a maintainer for it?

I’m going to reserve judgement on that until I see how things go with 
trying to get the existing coreboot code running on the boards.  The Gen 
1 should be here tomorrow (I think).

-Andy.

[Martin Roth]

Thanks Andy, I think that's totally reasonable.
Martin

Apr 26, 2022, 06:56 by [e-mail]:
> Felix wrote...
> > So, will you also step up as a maintainer for it?
>
> I’m going to reserve judgement on that until I see how things go with 
> trying to get the existing coreboot code running on the boards.  The Gen 
> 1 should be here tomorrow (I think).
>
> -Andy.
> _______________________________________________
> coreboot mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[ron minnich]

so how's it going?

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 8:41 AM Martin Roth via coreboot
 wrote:
> Thanks Andy, I think that's totally reasonable.
> Martin
>
> Apr 26, 2022, 06:56 by [e-mail]:
> > Felix wrote...
> > > So, will you also step up as a maintainer for it?
> >
> > I’m going to reserve judgement on that until I see how things go with
> > trying to get the existing coreboot code running on the boards.  The Gen
> > 1 should be here tomorrow (I think).
> >
> > -Andy.
> > _______________________________________________
> > coreboot mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> coreboot mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Andy Pont]

Ron wrote…
> so how's it going?

Slowly! The day job has got in the way a bit but I have been struggling 
to build the FSP binaries based on the instructions at [1].  I’m not 
sure whether that is down to me not fully understanding the instructions 
(always possible) or whether there is work-in-progress that needs to be 
completed.

I managed to build the FSP 1.1 binary using the six year old version of 
edk2 that Lee also has on his GitHub using an Ubuntu 16.04 development 
machine.  I haven’t yet managed to find a way to successful build the 
FSP 2.0 binary.  Trying to build EDK2 BaseTools throws a pile of Python 
syntax errors which may or may not be critical.  I’ve assumed they 
aren’t for now and am working on getting the binary to build.

-Andy.

1 - https://github.com/LeeLeahy/quarkfsp

[Angel Pons]

Hi Andy,

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 2:19 PM Andy Pont  wrote:
> Ron wrote…
> > so how's it going?
>
> Slowly! The day job has got in the way a bit but I have been struggling
> to build the FSP binaries based on the instructions at [1].  I’m not
> sure whether that is down to me not fully understanding the instructions
> (always possible) or whether there is work-in-progress that needs to be
> completed.
>
> I managed to build the FSP 1.1 binary using the six year old version of
> edk2 that Lee also has on his GitHub using an Ubuntu 16.04 development
> machine.  I haven’t yet managed to find a way to successful build the
> FSP 2.0 binary.  Trying to build EDK2 BaseTools throws a pile of Python
> syntax errors which may or may not be critical.  I’ve assumed they
> aren’t for now and am working on getting the binary to build.

Instructions on how to build QuarkFsp were added here:
https://review.coreboot.org/29029
> -Andy.
>
> 1 - https://github.com/LeeLeahy/quarkfsp

Best regards,
Angel

[ron minnich]

Do we have criteria on which to decide if quark is worth keeping? Is
there a deadline for the work? At some point, you're going to find
code changing out from under you; are you committing to be the
maintainer?

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 7:45 AM Angel Pons  wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 2:19 PM Andy Pont  wrote:
> > Ron wrote…
> > > so how's it going?
> >
> > Slowly! The day job has got in the way a bit but I have been struggling
> > to build the FSP binaries based on the instructions at [1].  I’m not
> > sure whether that is down to me not fully understanding the instructions
> > (always possible) or whether there is work-in-progress that needs to be
> > completed.
> >
> > I managed to build the FSP 1.1 binary using the six year old version of
> > edk2 that Lee also has on his GitHub using an Ubuntu 16.04 development
> > machine.  I haven’t yet managed to find a way to successful build the
> > FSP 2.0 binary.  Trying to build EDK2 BaseTools throws a pile of Python
> > syntax errors which may or may not be critical.  I’ve assumed they
> > aren’t for now and am working on getting the binary to build.
>
> Instructions on how to build QuarkFsp were added here:
> https://review.coreboot.org/29029
> > -Andy.
> >
> > 1 - https://github.com/LeeLeahy/quarkfsp
>
> Best regards,
> Angel

[Karl Semich]

Since I was involved in stimulating this thread, I'm commenting that I
only asked for and heard that Andy was going to test the existing code,
under the assumption it is not extensively burdensome to do so.

I understand that whether or not the board still works is a factor in some
people's views around keeping it.

It sounds like having a maintainer, or at least a plan for handling future
refactors, would help a lot too.

[Peter Stuge]

ron minnich wrote:
> At some point, you're going to find code changing out from under you;

I find that obnoxious.

I understand that you Ron are *not* saying that *you* will change
code from under Andy but I find the embracing/accepting of non-
compatibility and lack of longevity toxic.

I am not naive; yes it can happen, and I agree that it's okay, even
important to talk about that, but I also think it's important to
consider each time it happens a failure.

For me, longevity is a major reason to invest into free and open source
software. It's quite ironic that Win32 is the best example by far! :)

Kind regards

//Peter