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

Vladimir quickcracktime at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 21:36:47 CET 2015

Although I agree with you that AMD is not innocent as well, if you would
check a "Binary situation" page at coreboot's wiki, you would see that
Intel is in three times more evil (still could not understand why some
incredibly talented coreboot developers are spending so much time fighting
Intel's ME issues, while AMD boards don't have that "dragon you have to
tame" on board)

In any case, it would be very sad to see the AMD code gone from the master
branch. Even the code for some unpopular boards like Intel Atom-based EOL
"Mohron Peak" was allowed to stay! Why AMD boards are considered worse? The
sole idea of AMD code going away, which will affect many alive-and-kicking
coreboot-supported AMD boards, is beyond my comprehension

On 27 October 2015 at 23:15, Timothy Pearson <
tpearson at raptorengineeringinc.com> wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> On 10/27/2015 03:10 PM, Vladimir wrote:
> > 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 consequences
> AMD is hardly innocent on that front; they require a large binary blob
> to execute on the auxiliary CPU at bootup, with unknown security
> consequences.  Also, as far as I understand there has been no new AGESA
> source release for some time, only binary blobs.
> - --
> Timothy Pearson
> Raptor Engineering
> +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line)
> +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard)
> http://www.raptorengineeringinc.com
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> CXpvDMgjsWf8k0jmlW25ythzyEuD1fLsVhD84GvvO0anwMhT66IXtHVAyXUegd7T
> +iJd1MmthsSJRNW8xLhu9r+YEZInLAlq56HZ7ebnwbVmeokRhUdfCKUkUshPOO0N
> 73v5Q7SLQbhR8NwWzDF9jYF/DJyqfkgO1boBxDDGeV5XPzy5Ho+fwPFrH+E47nes
> 4u1uNxu8MYQvDoQzxIc/HE9scAhl79kuk3GUuiuoe6RlreKPlrFQVK0Rb+yIe/n+
> 63mz53ZLdHCoglQLiGpMYlrQDSgzwvHH7i+lfavacgctJd7+Q0n5MFh9TppN4Uc=
> =G6dr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20151027/5546c1a1/attachment.html>

More information about the coreboot mailing list