Thanks for everyone who has submitted status reports and now proved that they work.
BTW the boards devices support ASPM so you can remove the pcie_aspm=off in your kernel command line - I like to force it on myself with pcie_aspm=force. On 04/06/2018 09:54 PM, David Hendricks wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 3:40 PM, taii...@gmx.com <taii...@gmx.com> wrote: >> Like I have said before these types of policies are eventually going to >> result in coreboot only having unobtainable development boards in the >> tree (that are of course not owner controlled) >> >> It simply isn't right. > Indeed, this isn't right (as in correct) so don't spread this FUD. The > boards are still in the tree, you just need to check out whatever coreboot > version is known to actually work with the board. For example if a board > was last reported working in coreboot-4.6, then `git checkout 4.6` or > checkout a specific hash reported on the board_status repo. I swear I heard "removed from the tree" somewhere - irregardless only unobtainable closed-source development boards will benefit from new coreboot features. Eventually the old versions of coreboot will become non-functional for whatever reason so it won't be that simple (ie: don't checkout master) if one doesn't require the new features - already for example there are various old libs that coreboot requires which are only available *unsigned* from a single site. > It does no good for users to have hundreds of boards in master that fail to > boot, and no good for developers who need to maintain and refactor code for > boards that nobody tests and have been abandoned. I am not complaining because some random boards from 2005 that no one uses are being removed - this is because the last owner controlled x86_64 boards will eventually be functionally removed (and would have been if no one had submitted status for the D8). This isn't hundreds of boards that fail to boot - it is a few boards that do boot - and people know that they do (as everyone can see now that status have been submitted :D) As an example I don't mind the removal of the H8SCM because AGESA doesn't support IOMMU and the boards are now quite expensive (and not worth it for the money). > There's obviously a few people on this list using the Asus boards mentioned > which is great. The issue we need to solve is getting more people to submit > test results so that this isn't a problem in the future. Even if I didn't use mine for something important I am unable to submit results because I refuse to provide my "real" name and am too honest to use a fake name.
0xDF372A17.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
