Apr 16, 2022, 08:03 by nic...@gmx.de:
> It's always a trade-off. Is the Quark code really that bad that it
> is hard to keep it along?
>
I'm not particularly looking at removing the Quark code right now. I lobbied
early on to keep it in the tree. Really, I want 2 things out of this discussion.
Apr 16, 2022, 08:32 by nic...@gmx.de:
> Hi Sheng,
>
> On 16.04.22 11:01, Sheng Lean Tan wrote:
>
>> Personally I think moving Galileo soc to stable branch is a win-win
>> situation for all of us.
>>
>
> it looks like nobody is maintaining such a stable branch yet. Would you
> volunteer to
Wow, that one chip-specific kludge impacts almost 10 source files.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 11:15 AM ron minnich wrote:
>
> yes, and this is a perfect example of how one platform, which is not
> used, can cause unneeded features to persist and make the codebase
> more complex than it needs to be.
yes, and this is a perfect example of how one platform, which is not
used, can cause unneeded features to persist and make the codebase
more complex than it needs to be.
I support dropping it.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 2:12 AM Arthur Heymans wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> In 2016 'uart_pci_addr' was added to
Hi
In 2016 'uart_pci_addr' was added to the coreboot table entry for serial
devices.
(https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/14609)
It was done for the Intel Quark platform which has its uart on a PCI device
like other
Intel hardware. Right now only Quark sets this to a non zero value using an
Downloading the patches by wget from review.coreboot.org - really
often results in these errors today. my Internet connection is OK and
I'm able to load review.coreboot.org at the same time with a browser.
--2022-04-17 **:**:**--
https://review.coreboot.org/changes/58748/revisions/1/patch?zip
6 matches
Mail list logo
