On 09.05.2018 01:04, Nico Huber wrote: >>>>> Unless a pointer as described above exists for a given plat- >>>>> form that relies on a blob, all changes* to that platform >>>>> *shall* be refused. >> >> I think this is counter-productive, as is removing any old boards that >> don't comply. I am okay with creating new rules for future platforms, but >> there is no reason to throw perfectly good and working boards out just >> because they weren't written to comply with something we only just made up. >> You wouldn't really be punishing anyone with that (vendors don't care about >> outdated chips anyway), you'd just be taking choice away from our users. > > Well, that's why I brought older Intel based CrOS devices up. I think > they are the only ones that currently can't comply. I agree that we > should have an exception for older platforms. But it's not really > something "just made up", IMHO. Google made their own rules when > bringing blobs in with Sandy Bridge, just to break them later. So the > problem was obviously already visible when these platforms were added.
I need to clarify this. There were no written rules, AFAIR. What I meant was that Google broke with a practice they established themselves. So they should have noticed the conflict, IMHO. I'll stop yelling about the past. Let's focus on some rules for the future. Nico -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
