While it's not my preference, I'm fine with pulling picasso out of the tree and doing the development in private if that's the community desire. When we're done, it can go in, or not, as the coreboot community chooses. Because we can't boot what's in coreboot currently, we're being forced to develop the platforms in private anyway.
I'd like to note that the only reason it's "Rotting" is because we weren't able to get the patches in to get it working. Sure, they weren't perfect, but it's a new and different architecture. Instead of forcing google to develop it in private so that we can have something working, maybe we could have gotten something working into the codebase, then improved upon it. Maybe have a look at what's being forced on us before complaining about how we're going about it? On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 5:44 PM Nico Huber <nic...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hello coreboot fellows, > > we've recently seen the deprecation of Intel/Broadwell-DE support > because it turned out to be too proprietary to be maintained in the > long run. With that in mind, shouldn't additions to coreboot that > have high chances to suffer the same fate be discussed in advance? > It seems a huge burden for the community to add proprietary support > for a platform, and all related effort is wasted if support can't be > maintained. > > There are currently two new platforms in development that seem to > have trouble with public binaries (which would be necessary to make > the code useful to the coreboot community). Namely, AMD/Picasso and > Intel/Skylake-SP. Support for the former is already partially rotting > on our master branch. Shouldn't we discuss their fate before more > resources are wasted? > > Nico > _______________________________________________ > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
