On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:35 PM, David Hendricks <dhend...@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 <rminn...@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@coreboot.org >> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > > > > > -- > David Hendricks (dhendrix) > Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc. > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot