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

Vladimir quickcracktime at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 21:10:31 CET 2015

It would be really wrong to remove the whole AGESA code: there are
AMD-based products which are still very alive and actively sold (at the
developing markets) Moving the support for these products to a separate
coreboot branch, could create many inconveniences for those AMD product
owners who would like to test & use the latest and greatest coreboot build:
they will have to backport all the commits of code that's used by all the
boards, to that separate abandoned branch - which would cause a lot of
hassle and would basically cut them off from the development

I agree that removing could be done to some 2009 VIA-based EOL boards that
nobody cares about, but it would be a mistake to do that to all the AMD
products, some of which are still produced to this date and used together
with coreboot by lots of people from this mailing list

Also, that action will send a bad signal to AMD. AMD is actively supporting
the coreboot project and is much more friendly to open source community
than Intel with it's ME and creepy lock-it-all desires. Removing AGESA code
would be an equivalent of telling "we don't need your code" to AMD, one of
the largest coreboot supporters, and that could lead to a terrible

On 27 October 2015 at 22:40, Aaron Durbin <adurbin at google.com> wrote:

> 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
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20151027/c26d49ce/attachment.html>

More information about the coreboot mailing list