>
> It's just software, so it could certainly be done. How much work would
> be involved is the right question. Alas, I have no idea. One needs to
> study the AGESA sources to tell, I guess.
>
This question has come up time and time again:
What would actually be involved in {"cleaning up","doing a 'real'
port","whatever else makes sense'} to make these platforms based on AGESA
as maintainable as corresponding intel platforms?
I'll happily buy a round of beer (or equivalent) for anyone who can provide
a clear picture of what the road forward looks like. Then we can at least
talk in grounded terms.
-Matt
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:51 PM ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We've always deprecated platforms. And they're still in tree -- you
> can build for DEC Alpha if you want. There's no shame in not being in
> the latest release.
>
> Given unlimited time and money and people, we could fix all the
> problems. We live in a world of limits, and must do what we can with
> the resources we have.
>
> Nobody is stopping anyone from cleaning up the AGESA code. But it's
> been about 10 years since it came in, and such cleanup has yet to
> happen.
>
> We should move forward with the resource allocator, and if a board
> can't work with v4, and nobody is willing to do the work, that board
> should be left out of new releases. Having v3 and v4 both in-tree is
> not a viable long term strategy.
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:43 AM Nico Huber <nic...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 01.12.21 15:57, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> > > Thank you, these seem to be good points. However, in regards to:
> > >
> > >> If you have any hope of open-source coreboot for newer platforms, you
> shouldn't make it harder for coreboot to advance.
> > >
> > > Where to advance? Are there any "newer platforms" that are as worthy
> > > as the "older platforms":
> >
> > Not sure how to compare that, nobody has written native coreboot code
> > for the platforms that you deem worthy either. Also, ...
> >
> > > 1) as secure: no Intel ME / AMD PSP "security" co-processors, which
> > > are seen as harmful to real security by many ;
> >
> > ...open-source AGESA seems worse to me. In theory one could review it,
> > but did anyone? AIUI, it even provides runtime code for the OS (ACPI
> > DSDT), i.e. tells the OS what to do.
> >
> > So what you call "real security" seems more like wishful security to
> > me. Presence of ME or PSP does not provide a security issue per se. It
> > depends on your threat model and if they are your weakest spot. There
> > are plenty of controllers even in older machines that run code from ROM
> > masks. What's the difference? Can we trust vendors with code in ROM
> > masks but not with code in flash? These are subtle considerations. So
> > far, it doesn't make older hardware more attractive to me.
> >
> > Did I mention that at least one of the pre-PSP platforms already has
> > a PSP, just hidden? Ok, I admit I didn't look at the silicon to check,
> > but it's common that a silicon vendor puts new stuff early into chips
> > to test it. So it seems very likely to be true. We generally don't
> > know what exactly lives in these chips. I rather trust what I can see.
> >
> > > 2) as affordable: the older devices are possible to get used for like
> > > $100-$200. Meanwhile - because of Boot Guard etc. - the "newer
> > > platforms" are unlikely to have coreboot without vendor's involvement,
> > > who will gladly charge a big extra for "coreboot support".
> >
> > Last time I checked BootGuard wasn't a big issue, i.e. not so many
> > devices ship with it. Did that change?
> >
> > Devices sold today will be as affordable tomorrow (well, on a slightly
> > larger timescale). What's your point?
> >
> > > 3) as available: these generic consumer electronics, which have been
> > > shipped with a proprietary UEFI but got coreboot support later, have a
> > > huge numbers all over the world - compared to the quite limited
> > > availability of newer coreboot platforms.
> >
> > I don't understand this point either. This will change, earth keeps
> > turning, right? Also, I'm quite sure that your numbers are wrong
> > anyway. Please check how many Chromebooks are sold, for instance.
> > These, are sold by people who actually support the project btw.
> >
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't see any "newer platforms" which would match the "older
> > > platforms" on these critically-important points.
> >
> > You seem to be too much used to look behind. Please look ahead from
> > time to time. And regarding security, don't trust what you read on
> > the internet. It's far more subtle than non-PSP is secure, PSP is
> > insecure.
> >
> > Also, it's not about old vs. new hardware anyway. There's much older
> > hardware than the AGESA ports that will stay maintained. It's about
> > hardware that nobody took the time to write a proper, long-term main-
> > tainable coreboot for. And I can't blame anyone for it. Everything
> > AMD Bulldozer based always seemed like the most unattractive hard-
> > ware to me.
> >
> > > So it doesn't seem reasonable to drop the "crappy code" of "older
> > > platforms" in favor of the "beautiful code" of "newer platforms", if
> > > they could never become as worthy.
> >
> > You made it clear that they are worthy to *you* (even your arguments
> > seem extremely fragile, so maybe that changed), so you are free to look
> > after their code. Why not start with that instead of complaining that
> > nobody else does it for you?
> >
> > >
> > > Well, maybe some corporation sees their newer platform as "more
> > > worthy" - despite it's losing on all 3 points above and there are
> > > blobs-over-blobs. But they can't speak for the community of opensource
> > > hobbyists all over the world, people like you and me. And pleasing the
> > > corporations by easing their "burden" - while dropping the "older
> > > platforms" which are more worthy - doesn't seem wise, at least to
> > > me...
> >
> > You are blaming and talking to the wrong people. Deprecating old code
> > was always driven by the most libre developers in this community, FWIW.
> > They shoulder the hard work to keep the code base maintainable, so I
> > think they should decide what is worthy and what isn't (hopefully not
> > based on some weak, wishful arguments).
> >
> > Keeping the code clean makes life easier for other people too, sure, but
> > that's what happens when people work together on a project.
> >
> > Nico
> > _______________________________________________
> > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
> _______________________________________________
> coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
>
_______________________________________________
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
