[coreboot] A case for branching AGESA
quickcracktime at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 10:41:43 CET 2015
I strongly disagree with this branching "solution". Why?
Because - if building all the targets is slow - then just don't build all
the targets at once! If you need a fast build and you are not concerned
about AMD boards - just because you don't have any - it is always possible
to skip AGESA build without moving it to a branch and separating from the
rest of the coreboot code . So this is seen as a really bad excuse
On 3 November 2015 at 01:14, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote:
> Alex G. wrote:
> > >> users of AGESA can continue to contribute and work on the codebase.
> > > ... and diverge...
> > And that's expected. Convergence is a dream.
> I disagree. I think it's a goal rather than a dream.
> > AGESA boards use BuildOpts for configuration, and not much
> > Kconfig/devicetree.cb
> I've done a bit of work on moving BuildOpts config for IDS into Kconfig,
> but it's not quite ready yet. I wrote the change dry and the only
> test data I have available reports coreboot not working after
> applying it. :) Sometime..
> > SPD parsing routines. I can go on and on.
> > non-divergence is a moot point.
> I disagree - I think we need to work towards less divergence rather
> than move in a direction which is likely to create more divergence.
> That's the only way to keep the codebase maintainable - which we all
> want. It was clear to me already when we saw the very first code from
> AMD that integration into our own codebase would take a while.
> I don't want to remove contributed code until we've given that a real shot.
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the coreboot