[coreboot] Proposal: Removing obsolete & EOL boards and chipsets for 4.2 release

[David Hendricks]

This all sounds fine from a developer's perspective, but what about AMD's
customers? I honestly have no clue if the decision to use an AMD product
with coreboot hinges on whether AMD's supplied AGESA code is used or not.
But I can imagine ripping out the AMD-supplied code might make it difficult
for AMD to support customers who use coreboot.

I'm sure there are people on this list who _have actually supported
customers_ using AMD products and coreboot, so I'd like to hear their
perspective.

/my $0.02.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:20 PM, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com> wrote:

> The AGESA code was always an awkward fit into coreboot. It was more like a
> badly designed artificial limb than a real part of the code base. I
> understand the idea of encouraging vendors to commit source but, at this
> point, the AMD ship has sailed off to Port Binary Blob. AGESA was helpful
> in its time but I think I'm with tpearson on this point.
>
> I believe we should drop AGESA on any boards that have native support, and
> the sooner the better.
>
> ron
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>



-- 
David Hendricks (dhendrix)
Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20151027/61c3ae83/attachment.html>