Maybe it is just me, but it seems like lately there have been a lot of posts to the mailing list about, coreboot not supporting ANY Intel chipsets/cpu's. Is there rumors spreading around the mill??? If so we need to nip this in the bud, this is probably discouraging people that want to get involved with coreboot.
On 30/06/08 10:18 -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like lately there have been a lot of posts to the mailing list about, coreboot not supporting ANY Intel chipsets/cpu's. Is there rumors spreading around the mill??? If so we need to nip this in the bud, this is probably discouraging people that want to get involved with coreboot.
The truth is on the wiki: http://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Chipsets_and_Devices
If anybody asks, point people to that and let them draw their own conclusions.
Jordan
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:17:40 -0600, Jordan Crouse jordan.crouse@amd.com wrote:
On 30/06/08 10:18 -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like lately there have been a lot of posts to the mailing list about, coreboot not supporting ANY Intel chipsets/cpu's. Is there rumors spreading around the mill??? If so we
need
to nip this in the bud, this is probably discouraging people that want
to
get involved with coreboot.
The truth is on the wiki: http://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Chipsets_and_Devices
If anybody asks, point people to that and let them draw their own conclusions.
I agree Jordan, but it would be nice if we knew where this is coming from...
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:18:47AM -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like lately there have been a lot of posts to the mailing list about, coreboot not supporting ANY Intel chipsets/cpu's. Is there rumors spreading around the mill??? If so we need to nip this in the bud, this is probably discouraging people that want to get involved with coreboot.
Well - look at it from the other perspective. Intel's being difficult. The more obvious that becomes, the more they will be encouraged to change their ways and become more friendly and open.
That being said, the correct statement is of course that we don't have anything *modern* by Intel supported for lack of (unencumbered) documentation. Unless I'm missing something, of course...
Thanks, Ward.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:28:37 +0200, Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:18:47AM -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like lately there have been a lot of posts to the mailing list about, coreboot not supporting ANY Intel chipsets/cpu's. Is there rumors spreading around the mill??? If so we
need
to nip this in the bud, this is probably discouraging people that want
to
get involved with coreboot.
Well - look at it from the other perspective. Intel's being difficult.
The
more obvious that becomes, the more they will be encouraged to change their ways and become more friendly and open.
I don't think spreading the word that coreboot does not support anything Intel is a positive way to accomplish anything. It just frustrates and discourages people willing to get involved. We have to face the facts here, Intel may never get involved with coreboot, so the next best thing is to get as many developers involved willing to take the time to fill in the missing pieces of code. Thinking ouside of the box. This is what I did for the i830, It might have taken me a little longer, but in the long run I did it without any help from Intel (except for one public datasheet).
That being said, the correct statement is of course that we don't have anything *modern* by Intel supported for lack of (unencumbered) documentation. Unless I'm missing something, of course...
I think the Intel 3100 is fairly modern. Is Intel not releasing public datasheets for the more modern chipsets? Or could it just be a lack of coreboot developers willing to work on the more modern chipsets? My hands are just tied right now (working on a USB debugging side project). Although, in the near future I will be starting on porting the i854 chipset. I personally am more interested in Intel embedded designs.
On 30/06/08 13:18 -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:28:37 +0200, Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:18:47AM -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like lately there have been a lot of posts to the mailing list about, coreboot not supporting ANY Intel chipsets/cpu's. Is there rumors spreading around the mill??? If so we
need
to nip this in the bud, this is probably discouraging people that want
to
get involved with coreboot.
Well - look at it from the other perspective. Intel's being difficult.
The
more obvious that becomes, the more they will be encouraged to change their ways and become more friendly and open.
I don't think spreading the word that coreboot does not support anything Intel is a positive way to accomplish anything. It just frustrates and discourages people willing to get involved. We have to face the facts here, Intel may never get involved with coreboot, so the next best thing is to get as many developers involved willing to take the time to fill in the missing pieces of code. Thinking ouside of the box. This is what I did for the i830, It might have taken me a little longer, but in the long run I did it without any help from Intel (except for one public datasheet).
Honesty is the best (and only) practice here. Firmware development is hard - exceedingly hard, and thats with copious amounts of documentation. Without documentation, it becomes nearly impossible. Somebody look at the Barcelona memory initialization code and tell me they could have figured it out on their own. I'm thinking not.
So we have to be blatantly obvious about what our shortcomings are. You can believe all you want in the power of open source, but the truth of the matter is that 90% of all the people who come on this list to ask for a particular port are not interested in doing the work themselves, and the precious few that are willing to do the work need to be told right up front what they are facing. They need to know what NDAs they need to secure, what code distribution rights they need to ask for, and just how difficult this work really is, especially in the cpu/* and northbridge/* directories.
Thats not to say that people shouldn't be encouraged to ask the right questions - if enough people ask a vendor for datasheets, it might have a positive effect. But acting as though we are not developing from behind the eight ball is going to give everybody the wrong impression, and it will result in even more upset feelings then if we just told them right off the bat that they are asking for something that probably isn't going to happen.
And just in case this sounds like I'm bashing the competition, know that my own company is in the same boat. We have yet to release the datasheet for the SB600, and until we do, I'm going to be the first to tell the honest truth if somebody asks for it.
Jordan
I agree with you very much.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Jordan Crouse jordan.crouse@amd.com wrote:
On 30/06/08 13:18 -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:28:37 +0200, Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:18:47AM -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like lately there have been a lot of posts to the mailing list about, coreboot not supporting ANY Intel chipsets/cpu's. Is there rumors spreading around the mill??? If so we
need
to nip this in the bud, this is probably discouraging people that want
to
get involved with coreboot.
Well - look at it from the other perspective. Intel's being difficult.
The
more obvious that becomes, the more they will be encouraged to change their ways and become more friendly and open.
I don't think spreading the word that coreboot does not support anything Intel is a positive way to accomplish anything. It just frustrates and discourages people willing to get involved. We have to face the facts
here,
Intel may never get involved with coreboot, so the next best thing is to get as many developers involved willing to take the time to fill in the missing pieces of code. Thinking ouside of the box. This is what I did
for
the i830, It might have taken me a little longer, but in the long run I
did
it without any help from Intel (except for one public datasheet).
Honesty is the best (and only) practice here. Firmware development is hard - exceedingly hard, and thats with copious amounts of documentation. Without documentation, it becomes nearly impossible. Somebody look at the Barcelona memory initialization code and tell me they could have figured it out on their own. I'm thinking not.
So we have to be blatantly obvious about what our shortcomings are. You can believe all you want in the power of open source, but the truth of the matter is that 90% of all the people who come on this list to ask for a particular port are not interested in doing the work themselves, and the precious few that are willing to do the work need to be told right up front what they are facing. They need to know what NDAs they need to secure, what code distribution rights they need to ask for, and just how difficult this work really is, especially in the cpu/* and northbridge/* directories.
Thats not to say that people shouldn't be encouraged to ask the right questions - if enough people ask a vendor for datasheets, it might have a positive effect. But acting as though we are not developing from behind the eight ball is going to give everybody the wrong impression, and it will result in even more upset feelings then if we just told them right off the bat that they are asking for something that probably isn't going to happen.
And just in case this sounds like I'm bashing the competition, know that my own company is in the same boat. We have yet to release the datasheet for the SB600, and until we do, I'm going to be the first to tell the honest truth if somebody asks for it.
Jordan
-- coreboot mailing list coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:14:40 -0600, Jordan Crouse jordan.crouse@amd.com wrote:
On 30/06/08 13:18 -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:28:37 +0200, Ward Vandewege ward@gnu.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:18:47AM -0400, Joseph Smith wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like lately there have been a lot
of
posts to the mailing list about, coreboot not supporting ANY Intel chipsets/cpu's. Is there rumors spreading around the mill??? If so we
need
to nip this in the bud, this is probably discouraging people that
want
to
get involved with coreboot.
Well - look at it from the other perspective. Intel's being difficult.
The
more obvious that becomes, the more they will be encouraged to change their ways and become more friendly and open.
I don't think spreading the word that coreboot does not support anything Intel is a positive way to accomplish anything. It just frustrates and discourages people willing to get involved. We have to face the facts
here,
Intel may never get involved with coreboot, so the next best thing is to get as many developers involved willing to take the time to fill in the missing pieces of code. Thinking ouside of the box. This is what I did
for
the i830, It might have taken me a little longer, but in the long run I
did
it without any help from Intel (except for one public datasheet).
Honesty is the best (and only) practice here. Firmware development is hard - exceedingly hard, and thats with copious amounts of documentation.
Don't get me wrong I agree that it is hard no matter what documenation is available.
Without documentation, it becomes nearly impossible. Somebody look at the Barcelona memory initialization code and tell me they could have figured it out on their own. I'm thinking not.
So we have to be blatantly obvious about what our shortcomings are. You can believe all you want in the power of open source, but the truth of the matter is that 90% of all the people who come on this list to ask for a particular port are not interested in doing the work themselves,
And that maybe part of the problem with Intel hardware, everyone wants it but noone wants to work for it. I am far too familure with this, trust me.
and the precious few that are willing to do the work need to be told right up front what they are facing.
I was, and took it as a challenge, just like I am going to do with the USB debugging device.
They need to know what NDAs they need to secure, what code distribution rights they need to ask for, and just how difficult this work really is, especially in the cpu/* and northbridge/* directories.
Thats not to say that people shouldn't be encouraged to ask the right questions - if enough people ask a vendor for datasheets, it might have a positive effect.
Agreed.
But acting as though we are not developing from behind the eight ball is going to give everybody the wrong impression,
I hope I never implied that, I just want to give positive encouragement.
and it will result in even more upset feelings then if we just told them right off the bat that they are asking for something that probably isn't going to happen.
Agreed. But when someone asks If we support Intel hardware, telling them "no we don't go away" so to speak, do you expect a positive reaction? No, If someone said that to me I wouldn't even bother and just look for another bios solution and maybe even have a few comments about the group that didn't even bother, or offer help.
And just in case this sounds like I'm bashing the competition, know that my own company is in the same boat. We have yet to release the datasheet for the SB600, and until we do, I'm going to be the first to tell the honest truth if somebody asks for it.
Jordan, I have been involved with coreboot for about a year and a half now, and no matter how Intel feels about coreboot, which I keep hearing over and over, it is time to move in a new direction, and try something else. It is kind of like this: We call the pizza guy to deliver our pizza but he never shows up. What do we do? Keep calling the pizza guy to deliver our pizza over and over agian hoping someday he will show up? In the mean time we are getting hungrier and hungrier. Or, do we get up and go get pizza somwhere else? In the end, the second option was more work, but we stiil got pizza and fed our gut.
I hope you get my point.
On 01.07.2008 03:51, Joseph Smith wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:14:40 -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
and it will result in even more upset feelings then if we just told them right off the bat that they are asking for something that probably isn't going to happen.
Agreed. But when someone asks If we support Intel hardware, telling them "no we don't go away" so to speak, do you expect a positive reaction? No, If someone said that to me I wouldn't even bother and just look for another bios solution and maybe even have a few comments about the group that didn't even bother, or offer help.
How about the following statement: "We are supporting quite a few Intel CPUs and chipsets, but datasheets for newer Intel chipsets are very difficult to get. If you have a good business case, you can always try to convince Intel to release the datasheets for the chipset you are using. The coreboot team would be delighted to see that happen. Once we have the docs, we can help you port coreboot to these chipsets."
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:16:55 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
On 01.07.2008 03:51, Joseph Smith wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:14:40 -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
and it will result in even more upset feelings then if we just told
them
right off the bat that they are asking for something that probably
isn't
going to happen.
Agreed. But when someone asks If we support Intel hardware, telling them "no we don't go away" so to speak, do you expect a positive reaction?
No,
If someone said that to me I wouldn't even bother and just look for
another
bios solution and maybe even have a few comments about the group that didn't even bother, or offer help.
How about the following statement: "We are supporting quite a few Intel CPUs and chipsets, but datasheets for newer Intel chipsets are very difficult to get. If you have a good business case, you can always try to convince Intel to release the datasheets for the chipset you are using. The coreboot team would be delighted to see that happen. Once we have the docs, we can help you port coreboot to these chipsets."
I like it, you hit the nail right on the head Carl-Daniel :-)
Joseph Smith wrote:
Without documentation, it becomes nearly impossible. Somebody look at the Barcelona memory initialization code and tell me they could have figured it out on their own. I'm thinking not.
So we have to be blatantly obvious about what our shortcomings are. You can believe all you want in the power of open source, but the truth of the matter is that 90% of all the people who come on this list to ask for a particular port are not interested in doing the work themselves,
And that maybe part of the problem with Intel hardware, everyone wants it but noone wants to work for it. I am far too familure with this, trust me.
I don't think it's a matter of "noone _wants_ to work for it" but rather a question of Intel ports not being economically justifiable by those who are interested in doing so. Getting supported AMD hardware is cheaper and works out of the box. I am very curious to hear your story though. It's a major issue and the coreboot project has to solve it some time. We're not Robin Hood just because we ignore the "big guys"
We (coresystems) are working on support for newer Intel chipsets. But it's a long and cumbersome path to walk.
Stefan
Is the rumor me? If it's me, I'd like the tell what the inside is. I'm a newbie in free software development, and I'd like to start my free software development from the coreboot project. In China, so many people(more than a half) use intel cpus, and most of them are above P4, including me. So when i found coreboot only support intel cpu up to PIII, I'm very curious, and willing to make it support intel cpus above P4. That's why I asked so many questions about intel cpu. I don't think lack of support to something of coreboot will discourage people involve in, for me, I just want to make practice, I don't mind how perfect it is now, I really hope coreboot supported nothing, then I could develop it from zero. :)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Joseph Smith joe@settoplinux.org wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like lately there have been a lot of posts to the mailing list about, coreboot not supporting ANY Intel chipsets/cpu's. Is there rumors spreading around the mill??? If so we need to nip this in the bud, this is probably discouraging people that want to get involved with coreboot.
-- Thanks, Joseph Smith Set-Top-Linux www.settoplinux.org
-- coreboot mailing list coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 08:00:15AM +0800, Star Liu wrote:
Is the rumor me?
No. But because there have been many inquiries about support for recent Intel hardware in a short time, maybe your message was interpreted as indication of a starting trend.
If it's me, I'd like the tell what the inside is. I'm a newbie in free software development, and I'd like to start my free software development from the coreboot project.
Great! You are very welcome. I hope you will like it as much as we do. :) It is a lot of fun!
In China, so many people(more than a half) use intel cpus, and most of them are above P4, including me.
I don't know the statistics for Sweden where I am, but Intel systems are popular here too.
So when i found coreboot only support intel cpu up to PIII, I'm very curious, and willing to make it support intel cpus above P4. That's why I asked so many questions about intel cpu.
I believe curiosity and desire to improve is the true spirit of open source! But as Jordan wrote, it is far from trivial to add support for new CPUs and chipsets, even when the documentation is available.
You asked how come Linux works on Intel CPUs without documentation and the answer is that Linux doesn't need it. At least not the same documentation. Linux relies heavily on the boot firmware (BIOS or coreboot or something else) to do many tasks in order to make the system run in a stable way, and because the firmware must take care of this setup, Linux does not need the documentation.
The major tasks are:
* Start and tune the RAM controller * Start and tune all buses in the system
These two high-level tasks may seem simple, but they quickly branch into many things that must be taken into consideration in the code.
I don't think lack of support to something of coreboot will discourage people involve in, for me, I just want to make practice,
Please do not feel discouraged. We only want to share our experience from previous work, because it is difficult to estimate the effort that is required for extending coreboot. In general, it has not been easy to get information from Intel for their recent CPUs and chipsets. As others have confirmed, it is certainly not impossible to get good info from Intel if the circumstances are right, but I think the project and it's individual contributors are still far away from that situation.
AMD on the other hand are being very helpful, and as a result there is much better support for their products in coreboot. Also, more time is spent working on improvements related to AMD CPUs and chipsets.
Best regards
//Peter
Thank you very much! I got very clear concepts on coreboot, old bios and linux from you, it's very helpful. I think coreboot is doing the right thing, providing more and better support for AMD shall be a pressure on intel and other cpu and chipset vendors, I think. I'm reading the source code of flashrom now, hope i can figure out it. :)
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 08:00:15AM +0800, Star Liu wrote:
Is the rumor me?
No. But because there have been many inquiries about support for recent Intel hardware in a short time, maybe your message was interpreted as indication of a starting trend.
If it's me, I'd like the tell what the inside is. I'm a newbie in free software development, and I'd like to start my free software development from the coreboot project.
Great! You are very welcome. I hope you will like it as much as we do. :) It is a lot of fun!
In China, so many people(more than a half) use intel cpus, and most of them are above P4, including me.
I don't know the statistics for Sweden where I am, but Intel systems are popular here too.
So when i found coreboot only support intel cpu up to PIII, I'm very curious, and willing to make it support intel cpus above P4. That's why I asked so many questions about intel cpu.
I believe curiosity and desire to improve is the true spirit of open source! But as Jordan wrote, it is far from trivial to add support for new CPUs and chipsets, even when the documentation is available.
You asked how come Linux works on Intel CPUs without documentation and the answer is that Linux doesn't need it. At least not the same documentation. Linux relies heavily on the boot firmware (BIOS or coreboot or something else) to do many tasks in order to make the system run in a stable way, and because the firmware must take care of this setup, Linux does not need the documentation.
The major tasks are:
- Start and tune the RAM controller
- Start and tune all buses in the system
These two high-level tasks may seem simple, but they quickly branch into many things that must be taken into consideration in the code.
I don't think lack of support to something of coreboot will discourage people involve in, for me, I just want to make practice,
Please do not feel discouraged. We only want to share our experience from previous work, because it is difficult to estimate the effort that is required for extending coreboot. In general, it has not been easy to get information from Intel for their recent CPUs and chipsets. As others have confirmed, it is certainly not impossible to get good info from Intel if the circumstances are right, but I think the project and it's individual contributors are still far away from that situation.
AMD on the other hand are being very helpful, and as a result there is much better support for their products in coreboot. Also, more time is spent working on improvements related to AMD CPUs and chipsets.
Best regards
//Peter
-- coreboot mailing list coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:00:15 +0800, "Star Liu" minxinjianxin@gmail.com wrote:
Is the rumor me?
No, not you inparticular, it just seems we are getting alot of requests for Intel hardware.
If it's me, I'd like the tell what the inside is. I'm a newbie in free software development, and I'd like to start my free software development from the coreboot project. In China, so many people(more than a half) use intel cpus, and most of them are above P4, including me. So when i found coreboot only support intel cpu up to PIII, I'm very curious, and willing to make it support intel cpus above P4.
That would be great! Sometime in the future I would love to port the i845 (probibly the most popular P4 chipset) so P4 support would be key! Any questions, we are all here to support you :-)
By the way all of your emails keep getting flagged as spam for some reason?? Just so you know.
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Jordan Crouse -
Joseph Smith -
Peter Stuge -
Star Liu -
Stefan Reinauer -
Ward Vandewege