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 maintain one for Quark? AIUI, some people already want to take care of testing. So you'd only have to maintain compatibility with newer toolchain and payload versions and such. > For the enthusiast who still want to use it are freely to do so without the > baggage, and for others it’s a great savings on resources spent, so that we > could leave more rooms (and also testing resources)to the more upcoming > coreboot products and architecture (I think much more will come, the public > has just only warmed up to coreboot ;) ). FWIW, most resources for newer platforms are wasted by copying code (kind of forking the original code in the same repository). So there is much more potential to save resources by adding proper abstraction instead. And what would be better to get the abstractions right than a diverse set of platforms in the tree? I'm not saying, you need Quark for that, but so far I also don't see how it could hurt. Nico _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
