On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Kyösti Mälkki <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yet we have had commit 032c23db for 5 months: which may mean, only, that the commit broke some things and nobody hit those things until 5 months later? Which is not at all unusual with a change of this type. It's why we prefer that commits that are this far-reaching come with some amount of testing. That patch changed 7 mainboards; which of them were tested? > I remember a week or so after this was merged you made that comment about > i945 on a related change. I requested literature reference or a test case to > see if I should revert. I got neither and the revert never took place. It pays to listen to Stefan on matters such as these :-) There are at least two reasons that your request might not have been satisfiable. - the public docs and the hardware disagree (very common) - the public docs and the NDA docs disagree (this is very common) and the vendor knows it (also really common) > Until you are more specific on your statement, I am reading it as follows: > > Stefan added 'select MMCONF_SUPPORT_DEFAULT' on a mainboard with i945 > and the board did not boot. And sometimes that's about as good a diagnosis as you can get. Expecting anything more is not always realistic. That's what makes firmware so hard, sometimes. Meanwhile, we have a commit that broke some hardware. What do you want to do about it? I agree with Aaron, things might need to be tweaked, but ... who's got that old hardware, and the time to do it? Do you have a board of that ilk and the time to figure it out? How do you intend to resolve the problem caused by this commit? ron -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
