On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 5:18 AM Matt B <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There is essentially no interest for new board ports on AGESA/binaryPI, >> these platforms have mostly survived in the tree due to commercial support >> to maintain them. > > This seems to be untrue when boards like the Asus AM1I-A were ported as > recently as last year. [1] It's a AMD family 16h board that looks like it > calls into binaryPI based AGESA a number of times, judging by the boot logs > on the wiki. [2]
Like Martin noted above, board-status for asus/am1i-a is from mid-2018. Now it's not uncommon to lose interest after initial port is merged, aspecially if that board turned into a NAS production system, but the next big board obsoletion criteria might be the lack of active testing. Those who actively do testing and development on lenovo/g505s and asus/f2a85-m, thank you. I could rephrase what I said before but it will just look worse or offending to some: Those who have contributed to coreboot in form of new boards ports, using scrubbed AGESA vendorcode or binaryPI blobs, have never shown much interest to evolve the platform code (in coreboot proper). This very much applies to original authors AMD AES (R.I.P.) and SAGE (R.I.P.), AGESA and binaryPI only survived over LATE_CBMEM_INIT deprecation thanks to PC Engines support. Kyösti Mälkki _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
