Re: [coreboot] [RFH] Native AMD fam10-15 support

[Merlin Büge]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:45:49 +0300
Kyösti Mälkki  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, [e-mail] 
> wrote:
> > On 06/13/2018 04:12 PM, Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Now that we wiped out K8, I'd like to put my eyes on fam10-15
> > > boards.
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by wiped out?
> > > Couple questions for board owners:
> > >
> > > First, about asus/kcma-d8 and asus/kgpe-d16: Do these have working
> > > S3 support? I remember rumours they originally worked at some
> > > point, but regressed during the rebase / upstream process. Anyone
> > > willing to bisect/fix it if necessary?
> >
> > I have a D16 with v4.6 that I regularly use suspend with and it
> > works absolutely fine - I can also suspend a host featuring a guest
> > with IOMMU graphics and then resume that host later on and continue
> > playing video games on the guest.
>
> So you are committed to bisect this and make it work on current
> master, thank you.
> > I again state my for-some-reason controversial opinion that at this
> > rate there will soon be no non-development boards in coreboot due
> > to the choices of the current leadership in determining standards.
>
> I hear you and weigh your opinion according to the number of commits I
> can recognize you have authored on the repo.

I just want to mention:
Generally, helping out with documentation and (especially) code review
and even ordinary users who report bugs are also a value-add to the
coreboot project.
> Kyösti

[RFH] Native AMD fam10-15 support

[Patrick Georgi]

Merlin Büge  schrieb am Do., 14. Juni 2018, 19:30:
> I just want to mention:
> Generally, helping out with documentation and (especially) code review
> and even ordinary users who report bugs are also a value-add to the
> coreboot project.

Indeed. Not necessarily when it comes deciding about the maintenance of
code that they never touched, ran, documented or tested though.

Regards,
Patrick

[RFH] Native AMD fam10-15 support

[Kyösti Mälkki]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Merlin Büge  wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:45:49 +0300
> Kyösti Mälkki  wrote:
> > I hear you and weigh your opinion according to the number of commits I
> > can recognize you have authored on the repo.
>
> I just want to mention:
> Generally, helping out with documentation and (especially) code review
> and even ordinary users who report bugs are also a value-add to the
> coreboot project.

Agreed and Talidan should not get offended by previous comment. I get way
more rude and personal in some of my reviews towards commercial vendors.
Apologies for that.

Just recently, cases of RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE=n started to fail to boot
certain payload builds. The accumulated developers time it took to bisect,
discuss and come up with a sub-standard solution for that; should I say 8
hours across 5 active developers. That time is better spent elsewhere, I
consider the discussion of why we deprecate older boards from master just
not productive at all.

Notice that even the little details Matthias provided earlier already moves
us forwards.

The criteria I listed was my personal wishlist as flipping to
RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE=y has proven to be quite easy and the remaining
platforms are:

northbridge/amd/amdfam10
  northbridge/amd/lx          <- waiting for EARLY_CBMEM_INIT
  northbridge/intel/i440bx    <- already tested
  northbridge/via/vx900       <- I know competent person to do this
  soc/intel/fsp_baytrail      <- I have hardware and know person to
double-check
  soc/intel/fsp_broadwell_de  <- I know competent person to do this

Kyösti