Sorry, I guess I'm just sensitive about the topic of removing code, since, as you say, it's been talked about a lot.
I obviously do appreciate your work on it. Take care. Martin May 17, 2022, 12:17 by [email protected]: > Hi > I have patches that improve those platforms and wrote code that should make > some of > the AGESA platforms easier to transition to newer soon to be mandated > codepaths and I did so > with past codepath mandates with both code and review. > > My message about moving code from the master branch was more or less a tongue > in cheek, I'm > sorry that it was perceived differently. I'm not advocating for removal, just > referring to past discussions. > It is however a problem to get code changes tested. The (admittedly cynical) > joke was just to get some attention to patches > I would like to get reviewed as that work tends to be related to general > codebase improvements. > > > Instead of phrasing it this way, maybe say something like, "Thanks AMD for > > releasing this, now community, let's get together and review and improve > > things." > It's likely that AMD does not care about the AGESA platforms supported in > coreboot, since they don't produce that hardware anymore? > Just making assumptions here. Anyway, improving that code is my intention > given that I write patches for it ;-) > > Arthur > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:40 PM Martin Roth <> [email protected]> > wrote: > >> Arthur, you are not making an argument that any vendor should release their >> source code as opensource. I agree that all of this code should be >> reviewed, but if we complain about code quality and lack of testing for open >> sourced code, but don't for closed source, that's an argument against any >> company opening their codebases. >> >> Instead of phrasing it this way, maybe say something like, "Thanks AMD for >> releasing this, now community, let's get together and review and improve >> things." >> >> Just my opinion, and I'm intentionally replying off list. But I'll say >> that I'm going to fight *very* hard to keep the AGESA codebases in coreboot >> for as long as there are people testing it. Doing otherwise is again, a >> disincentive to companies for opening their sourcecode. >> >> Take care. >> Martin >> >> >> May 17, 2022, 08:47 by >> [email protected]>> : >> >> > Hi >> > We spend more time debating whether to keep AGESA in the master branch >> than actually reviewing code to maintains it. >> > Here are some patches series I would like to be tested & reviewed: >> > Agesa was never properly linked and relied on default linker behavior to >> append unmatched data. Here is the fix: > >> >> https://review.coreboot.org/q/topic:AGESA_DATA >> > Use MRC cache for non volatile data > >> >> https://review.coreboot.org/q/topic:AGESA_MRC_CACHE >> > Use CLFLUSH to make sure code hits DRAM and incidently avoid inconsistent >> MTRRs (bonus is compressed postcar stage): > >> >> https://review.coreboot.org/q/topic:compress_postcar >> > Kind regards >> > Arthur >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
