Just curious, with all the support from AMD, how come no one ever ventured down the Athlon XP road? Athlon XP setups are very cheap these days, possibly making development cost effective???
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org wrote:
Just curious, with all the support from AMD, how come no one ever ventured down the Athlon XP road? Athlon XP setups are very cheap these days, possibly making development cost effective???
The Athlon XP, and most/all chipsets supporting it, are EOL, therefore not a good option from a manufacturer design standpoint, so I wouldn't expect someone to contract a port any time soon. AMD is making the best of their available resources by supporting the K8 and AMD690 chipset, which had not reached EOL when work started on the port but I think it may have now. Also, the K7 datasheets are not publically available (last I looked), probably because of details about whatever made them kick P4 ass back in the day :D The datasheets on Via KT333/400 chipsets are available online, but not from Via, so I'm not sure of their legallity (you would almost certainly not get that datasheet from Via themselves). I don't know if AMD has any of their K7 chipset docs available online.
-Corey
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:44:49 -0500, "Corey Osgood" corey.osgood@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org
wrote:
Just curious, with all the support from AMD, how come no one ever
ventured
down the Athlon XP road? Athlon XP setups are very cheap these days, possibly making development cost effective???
The Athlon XP, and most/all chipsets supporting it, are EOL, therefore
not
a good option from a manufacturer design standpoint, so I wouldn't expect someone to contract a port any time soon. AMD is making the best of their available resources by supporting the K8 and AMD690 chipset, which had
not
reached EOL when work started on the port but I think it may have now. Also, the K7 datasheets are not publically available (last I looked), probably because of details about whatever made them kick P4 ass back in the day
:D
The datasheets on Via KT333/400 chipsets are available online, but not from Via, so I'm not sure of their legallity (you would almost certainly not get that datasheet from Via themselves). I don't know if AMD has any of their K7 chipset docs available online.
That's too bad. I have a few of these kicking around and your right, they did kick P4 ass back in the day. Hmm, although we spend alot of time with discontinued Intel chips that have limited to null support, why not a discontinued AMD chip? I'm sure a few of the AMD developers on boards have some knowlage in this area.....
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:44:49 -0500, "Corey Osgood" <corey.osgood@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org
wrote:
Just curious, with all the support from AMD, how come no one ever
ventured
down the Athlon XP road? Athlon XP setups are very cheap these days, possibly making development cost effective???
The Athlon XP, and most/all chipsets supporting it, are EOL, therefore
not
a good option from a manufacturer design standpoint, so I wouldn't expect someone to contract a port any time soon. AMD is making the best of their available resources by supporting the K8 and AMD690 chipset, which had
not
reached EOL when work started on the port but I think it may have now. Also, the K7 datasheets are not publically available (last I looked), probably because of details about whatever made them kick P4 ass back in the day
:D
The datasheets on Via KT333/400 chipsets are available online, but not from Via, so I'm not sure of their legallity (you would almost certainly not get that datasheet from Via themselves). I don't know if AMD has any of their K7 chipset docs available online.
That's too bad. I have a few of these kicking around and your right, they did kick P4 ass back in the day. Hmm, although we spend alot of time with discontinued Intel chips that have limited to null support,
You mean 440bx, i810, etc? Those have publically available docs for the processor, north, and southbridge, and SDRAM init is, comparatively, extremely simple. And i945 is still being used on some embedded boards.
why not a discontinued AMD chip? I'm sure a few of the AMD developers on boards have some knowlage in this area.....
IMO, I'd much rather see them working on the latest K8 chipset then K7 stuff, no offense. I'd much rather put coreboot on my next desktop then my last one.
-Corey
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:47:27 -0500, "Corey Osgood" corey.osgood@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:44:49 -0500, "Corey Osgood"
<corey.osgood@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org
wrote:
Just curious, with all the support from AMD, how come no one ever
ventured
down the Athlon XP road? Athlon XP setups are very cheap these days, possibly making development cost effective???
The Athlon XP, and most/all chipsets supporting it, are EOL, therefore
not
a good option from a manufacturer design standpoint, so I wouldn't
expect
someone to contract a port any time soon. AMD is making the best of
their
available resources by supporting the K8 and AMD690 chipset, which had
not
reached EOL when work started on the port but I think it may have now. Also, the K7 datasheets are not publically available (last I looked),
probably
because of details about whatever made them kick P4 ass back in the
day
:D
The datasheets on Via KT333/400 chipsets are available online, but not from Via, so I'm not sure of their legallity (you would almost certainly
not
get that datasheet from Via themselves). I don't know if AMD has any of
their
K7 chipset docs available online.
That's too bad. I have a few of these kicking around and your right,
they
did kick P4 ass back in the day. Hmm, although we spend alot of time with discontinued Intel chips that
have
limited to null support,
You mean 440bx, i810, etc? Those have publically available docs for the processor, north, and southbridge, and SDRAM init is, comparatively, extremely simple. And i945 is still being used on some embedded boards.
You got a point.
why not a discontinued AMD chip? I'm sure a few of the AMD developers on board have some knowlage in this area.....
IMO, I'd much rather see them working on the latest K8 chipset then K7 stuff, no offense. I'd much rather put coreboot on my next desktop then
my
last one.
Yah me too. But you have to admit that it would be cool to see a Athlon XP board booting coreboot (gives me tingles just thinking about it) :-)
Joseph Smith wrote:
But you have to admit that it would be cool to see a Athlon XP board booting coreboot
I think it is very important for coreboot to focus on hardware that is new enough that it will still be sold for as long time as possible after the coreboot code has been finished.
At the moment we don't get very good results here because coreboot work has always started late in the hardware lifecycle. I hope this will improve in the future.
It is key to keep looking forward. But older hardware can be good learning projects, assuming documentation is readily available.
//Peter
-
Corey Osgood -
Joseph Smith -
Peter Stuge