Re: [coreboot] [URGENT] Full List of AMD-based boards that are going to be removed from coreboot unless people cough up a board status update

[Piotr Król]

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



On 04/28/2018 02:37 PM, Mike Banon wrote:

Hi Mike,

  
 PC Engines alix1c - AMD LX - 2017-09-17 PC Engines alix2d - AMD LX
 - 2017-09-17 PC Engines apu1 - AMD Family 14h (AGESA) - 2017-09-05 
 PC Engines apu2 // apu3 // apu4 // apu5 - AMD 00730F01 (PI) -
 2017-10-26
What is expected frequency of sending board status updates? We have
all those board and even some awaiting port to coreboot.

We are committed to keep those platforms on the master but I'm not
sure if I understand rules based on which platforms are planned for
removal.

We maintain coreboot tree with customer specific customizations that
will probably never lend in mainline, because of that we are rather
interested to make coreboot work with PC Engines platforms on tagged
releases and not exactly on any random commit in between. Any commit
approach would require firmware validation automation which we will
eventually have. So if release cycles take a lot of time then IMO
delayed board status update should be allowed.

Second thing that IMO is problematic in board status is assumption
that system have to boot with vanilla coreboot. This is problematic
when you have to use customized version of SeaBIOS or any other
payload used for booting system.

Because of long weekend we will send board status updates for boards
under 3mdeb maintainership before 11 May. Please let me know if feel
this is too late.

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

[URGENT] Full List of AMD-based boards that are going to be removed from coreboot unless people cough up a board status update

[ron minnich]

This is a *personal* opinion, not supported by anyone else I suppose, but:

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people send in board status 2
times a year.

That's it. It makes it easier for potential users, and for people
maintaining the tree.

Sound ok?

ron

[URGENT] Full List of AMD-based boards that are going to be removed from coreboot unless people cough up a board status update

[Nico Huber]

Hi Piotr,

On 28.04.2018 15:16, Piotr Król wrote:
  Second thing that IMO is problematic in board status
is assumption
 that system have to boot with vanilla coreboot. This is problematic
 when you have to use customized version of SeaBIOS or any other
 payload used for booting system.
The payload doesn't matter. Only thing we'd care about is the coreboot
revision that should be vanilla. Actually board status currently accepts
any revision and rules weren't discussed, yet (another point why I don't
think anything will happen because of missing board-status uploads).

Nico

[URGENT] Full List of AMD-based boards that are going to be removed from coreboot unless people cough up a board status update

[Piotr Król]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512



On 04/28/2018 03:48 PM, Nico Huber wrote:
  Hi Piotr,
Hi Nico,

  
 On 28.04.2018 15:16, Piotr Król wrote:
  Second thing that IMO is problematic in board
status is
 assumption that system have to boot with vanilla coreboot. This
 is problematic when you have to use customized version of SeaBIOS
 or any other payload used for booting system.
 
 The payload doesn't matter. Only thing we'd care about is the
 coreboot revision that should be vanilla. Actually board status
 currently accepts any revision and rules weren't discussed, yet
 (another point why I don't think anything will happen because of
 missing board-status uploads).
If your payload version/repository is different you have to modify
Makefile to build bootable coreboot.rom then you will get dirty tree.

If policy was not discussed, then I do not understand hype related to
boards removal.

Best Regards,
- -- 
Piotr Król
Embedded Systems Consultant
https://3mdeb.com | @3mdeb_com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=A3Jv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[URGENT] Full List of AMD-based boards that are going to be removed from coreboot unless people cough up a board status update

[Nico Huber]

On 02.05.2018 18:06, Piotr Król wrote:
  On 04/28/2018 03:48 PM, Nico Huber wrote:
  On 28.04.2018 15:16, Piotr Król wrote:
  Second thing that IMO is problematic in board
status is
 assumption that system have to boot with vanilla coreboot. This
 is problematic when you have to use customized version of SeaBIOS
 or any other payload used for booting system.
 The payload doesn't matter. Only thing we'd care about is the
 coreboot revision that should be vanilla. Actually board status
 currently accepts any revision and rules weren't discussed, yet
 (another point why I don't think anything will happen because of
 missing board-status uploads).
 
 If your payload version/repository is different you have to modify
 Makefile to build bootable coreboot.rom then you will get dirty tree.
I don't see that. You can always build your payload separately and
add it with CONFIG_PAYLOAD_ELF.

  
 If policy was not discussed, then I do not understand hype related to
 boards removal.
What I tried to say more subtly earlier, the hype is pure bullshit.

Nico