This all sounds fine from a developer's perspective, but what about AMD's customers? I honestly have no clue if the decision to use an AMD product with coreboot hinges on whether AMD's supplied AGESA code is used or not. But I can imagine ripping out the AMD-supplied code might make it difficult for AMD to support customers who use coreboot.
I'm sure there are people on this list who _have actually supported customers_ using AMD products and coreboot, so I'd like to hear their perspective. /my $0.02. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:20 PM, ron minnich <[email protected]> wrote: > The AGESA code was always an awkward fit into coreboot. It was more like a > badly designed artificial limb than a real part of the code base. I > understand the idea of encouraging vendors to commit source but, at this > point, the AMD ship has sailed off to Port Binary Blob. AGESA was helpful > in its time but I think I'm with tpearson on this point. > > I believe we should drop AGESA on any boards that have native support, and > the sooner the better. > > ron > > -- > coreboot mailing list: [email protected] > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > -- David Hendricks (dhendrix) Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
