[coreboot] Unifying AMD SB700/SB800/SB900 code base

Peter Stuge peter at stuge.se
Wed Mar 6 23:10:21 CET 2013

David Hendricks wrote:
> I suspect it's best to simply accept the ugly parts rather than
> diverge from whatever AMD uses internally.

I think it depends. If the coreboot repo is basically a write-once
medium for the AMD code and if what gets written never has any reuse
anyway then I think it would be fine to do cleanup.

ron minnich wrote:
> Unless you're prepared to test and verify on the exact hardware,
> don't do it.

I agree with this. Testing is important after any major change.

I don't think it matters if we have life more complicated than the
kernel, this particular cleanup effort would be quite isolated and
can take place in some separate branch maintained by Paul or someone

It's not a high priority, but I do think it would be nice to have.

If at some point there is a perfectly clear branch with some simple
commits that unify syntactical differences then that can be trivially
reviewed by a larger group, and also easily tested and merged if
there are no problems. This is of course the same model as for all
other development, except I think a branch is warranted since it's a
string of commits which do different logical changes but very much
belong together, so I'd prefer to merge them all at once.

> The kernel is not a guide for firmware work.

This is true, but a good structure is nothing unique to either
kernel or firmware work - it's just basic good programming.

That said - I think that this particular construction site is not
so important, and I would much rather like to see effort spent on
some of "our own" construction sites in the code.

One example is to streamline code (or just files) across mainboard
directories, or any one of the numerous worthwhile


More information about the coreboot mailing list