I strongly disagree with this branching "solution". Why? Because - if building all the targets is slow - then just don't build all the targets at once! If you need a fast build and you are not concerned about AMD boards - just because you don't have any - it is always possible to skip AGESA build without moving it to a branch and separating from the rest of the coreboot code . So this is seen as a really bad excuse
Best regards, Vladimir Shipovalov On 3 November 2015 at 01:14, Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > Alex G. wrote: > > >> users of AGESA can continue to contribute and work on the codebase. > > > ... and diverge... > > > > And that's expected. Convergence is a dream. > > I disagree. I think it's a goal rather than a dream. > > > AGESA boards use BuildOpts for configuration, and not much > > Kconfig/devicetree.cb > > I've done a bit of work on moving BuildOpts config for IDS into Kconfig, > but it's not quite ready yet. I wrote the change dry and the only > test data I have available reports coreboot not working after > applying it. :) Sometime.. > > > > SPD parsing routines. I can go on and on. > > non-divergence is a moot point. > > I disagree - I think we need to work towards less divergence rather > than move in a direction which is likely to create more divergence. > > That's the only way to keep the codebase maintainable - which we all > want. It was clear to me already when we saw the very first code from > AMD that integration into our own codebase would take a while. > > I don't want to remove contributed code until we've given that a real shot. > > > //Peter > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot