On 08.07.2008 17:44, Jordan Crouse wrote: > On 08/07/08 08:21 -0700, ron minnich wrote: > >> I would be willing to bet that a lot of that patch activity was me, >> and I've been pulled away to other things. We need more people >> involved. It is true that the path of least resistance is v2 -- it's >> here and it works. But we need people to take the hard path and get on >> v3. I can tell you, that once you get going on it, you won't want to >> go back. v3 is really nice. >> >> I guess v2 works too well :-) >> > > Here's the problem. Based on the number of email and IRC requests, > it is clear that RS690/SB600 code is in great demand. And right > behind that we hear clamoring for RS780/SB700 and Barcelona B3. > We currently have two choices - we can go for V3, which would give > us big style points but our fans will probably be disappointed while > we spend the time to iron out the wrinkles. Or we can go for V2 and > run the risk of continuing to prop up the legacy code. Our hope is > that eventually v3 will catch up with us, and we can seamlessly switch > to v3 for some future chipset or processor. > > Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to do both, and you will forgive > us if we go the path of least resistance for our customers. I think that > most every other commercial vendor in this project faces the same > dilemma.
And I am immensely thankful that AMD is creating support for new chipsets. More supported chipsets mean more users which means more developers (to some extent). This indirectly benefits v3, so a big "thank you" from me. > The solution is to recruit a new generation of developers who > are willing to take the time and effort of moving our primary processors > and chipsets to v3 and stabilizing it to the point where the customers > can reliably move. This has already happened for the most part for > the Geode LX with positive results. Once we solve the few remaining warts, > then there would be no reason to use V2 for LX. > Fully agreed. > Speaking strictly for myself, I do think that v3 is the way to go, and we > look forward to when we can recommend it to our customers. But we just > can't justify the extra time and effort at this point, and judging from > the emails asking for SB600 code, neither can you. > I'm happy with the priorities you outline and hope we'll reach the "customer recommendable" milestone soon. > PS: And I apologize personally for doing more to damage v3 and LAR then > any other three developers - I mean well, I promise! :) > Stirring things up is a great way to get people thinking about the grand scheme of things. You invested a lot of time analyzing LAR and the SELF proposal was a great way to advance our understanding of it. Although no commits resulted from it, I see your actions as very beneficial, not damaging. I hope to prepare a proposal incorporating your SELF design together with a slightly modified LAR design in the next few weeks. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
