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

[Aaron Durbin]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:35 PM, David Hendricks <dhendrix at google.com> wrote:
> 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.

The code lives on a branch. People are more than happy to work within
that branch. That's exactly what branches are for.

I'll one up the recommendation and suggest all non-romcc code that
#includes C files gets removed after the branch point. Or do such a
thing in the next release. I'm sick of having to deal with and
fighting against these development constructs.

>
> 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.
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot