"Jay Talbott" <jaytalb...@sysproconsulting.com> writes: > I know I don't post much here, but I feel like I need to chime in on this > thread... Perhaps it's time that SysPro becomes a louder voice in the > community. > > Bay Trail and Broadwell DE are both still very popular platforms, yet > neither one of them meets the cut for any of the three criteria. So I > caution against removing the support for either of them too hastily.
Could you test with "select NO_RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE"? > > Yes, it can be a pain to keep maintaining old platforms, and certainly > support for platforms that are old enough that they are no longer being used > by anybody are good candidates for cleanup and > removal. It's not about old or new. For instance the Intel i440bx (20y old) is still supported by coreboot, uses many recent features like POSTCAR_STAGE and relocatable ramstage, so it would be flagged for cleanup and removal. > But support for platforms that are still popular and still actively being > used by people shouldn't be stripped out of the coreboot code base. > If they are still popular and actively used, it would mean that someone has interest towards achieving new coreboot standards? Pushing standards is not really about active use or not but about improving the code base. > My $0.02. > > - Jay > > Jay Talbott > SysPro Consulting, LLC > 3057 E. Muirfield St. > Gilbert, AZ 85297 > (480) 704-8045 > (480) 445-9895 (FAX) > jaytalb...@sysproconsulting.com > http://www.sysproconsulting.com > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [coreboot] Further coreboot releases, setting new standards > From: Arthur Heymans <art...@aheymans.xyz> > Date: Fri, November 23, 2018 8:32 am > To: Patrick Georgi via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org> > Cc: Patrick Georgi <pgeo...@google.com> > > Patrick Georgi via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org> writes: > > > Am Fr., 23. Nov. 2018 um 14:43 Uhr schrieb Arthur Heymans > <art...@aheymans.xyz>: > > > > I'd argue for requiring the following: > > > > In which time frame? The next release, ie May 2019? In two releases, > > November 2019? > > > That is indeed worthy item of discussion. > > NO_RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE on x86 is only selected by: > NORTHBRIDGE_AMD_AMDFAM10, > NORTHBRIDGE_AMD_LX, > NORTHBRIDGE_VIA_VX900, > SOC_INTEL_FSP_BAYTRAIL, > SOC_INTEL_FSP_BROADWELL_DE > > POSTCAR_STAGE is selected by: > cpu/amd/agesa > cpu/amd/pi > mainboard/intel/galileo > northbridge/intel/i440bx > northbridge/intel/i945 > northbridge/intel/e7505 > northbridge/intel/gm45 > northbridge/intel/haswell > northbridge/intel/nehalem > northbridge/intel/pineview > northbridge/intel/sandybridge > northbridge/intel/sandybridge > northbridge/intel/x4x > soc/amd/stoneyridge > soc/intel/apollolake > soc/intel/cannonlake > soc/intel/denverton_ns > soc/intel/skylake > soc/intel/icelake > so all other x86 targets don't implement it and therefore lack > NO_CAR_GLOBAL_MIGRATION. > > C_ENVIRONMENT_BOOTBLOCK is even less used since it is a relatively new > feature (was introduced with INTEL_APOLLOLAKE and INTEL_SKYLAKE) so most > x86 targets don't implement it but there are already many patches for it > lying > around for review (like most targets in northbridge/intel/*). It is > however a very useful feature to have. > > So it would seem reasonable to drop NO_RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE in may 2019 > and mandate NO_CAR_GLOBAL_MIGRATION and C_ENVIRONMENT_BOOTBLOCK in > november 2019? Any thoughts on this? > > Nico also suggested to set the timeframe 2 weeks before the release, to > avoid last minute WIP patches attempting to tackle the issue right > before the release. > > -- > ============== > Arthur Heymans > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- ============== Arthur Heymans -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
