Release notes for 4.7 are published in the download section of coreboot,
alongside the releases [1]. If you
mean a blog post, I agree, I didn't do one of those for 4.7.
As far as the panic about boards getting removed, while it would be good to
remove UNUSED boards
from the current master
On 02.05.2018 17:53, Piotr Król wrote:
> On 04/28/2018 03:46 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>> This is a *personal* opinion, not supported by anyone else I
>> suppose, but:
>>
>> I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people send in board
>> status 2 times a year.
>>
>> That's it. It makes it easier
On 02.05.2018 18:06, Piotr Król wrote:
> On 04/28/2018 03:48 PM, Nico Huber wrote:
>> On 28.04.2018 15:16, Piotr Król wrote:
>>> Second thing that IMO is problematic in board status is
>>> assumption that system have to boot with vanilla coreboot. This
>>> is problematic when you have to use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/28/2018 03:48 PM, Nico Huber wrote:
> Hi Piotr,
Hi Nico,
>
> On 28.04.2018 15:16, Piotr Król wrote:
>> Second thing that IMO is problematic in board status is
>> assumption that system have to boot with vanilla coreboot. This
>> is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/28/2018 03:46 PM, ron minnich wrote:
Hi Ron,
> This is a *personal* opinion, not supported by anyone else I
> suppose, but:
>
> I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people send in board
> status 2 times a year.
>
> That's it. It
Sadly these apu2//3//4//5 require a closed source AMD PSP binary to
run: less freedom for user, also - a possible remote control hardware
backdoor there, like Intel ME ! Thats why I prefer K8/10h/14h/15h/16h
- all the AMD architectures that are not PI / PSP. Even if the
manufacturer has declared
On 28/04/2018 14:37, Mike Banon wrote:
There are a lot of nice AMD-based coreboot-supported boards which have
an outdated board_status and are at risk of removal. The majority of
these boards (with the exception of PC engines apu2//3//4//5) - do not
require a closed source AMD PSP binary to
This is a *personal* opinion, not supported by anyone else I suppose, but:
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people send in board status 2
times a year.
That's it. It makes it easier for potential users, and for people
maintaining the tree.
Sound ok?
ron
--
coreboot mailing list:
Hi Piotr,
On 28.04.2018 15:16, Piotr Król wrote:
> Second thing that IMO is problematic in board status is assumption
> that system have to boot with vanilla coreboot. This is problematic
> when you have to use customized version of SeaBIOS or any other
> payload used for booting system.
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/28/2018 02:37 PM, Mike Banon wrote:
Hi Mike,
>
> PC Engines alix1c - AMD LX - 2017-09-17 PC Engines alix2d - AMD LX
> - 2017-09-17 PC Engines apu1 - AMD Family 14h (AGESA) - 2017-09-05
> PC Engines apu2 // apu3 // apu4 // apu5 - AMD
There are a lot of nice AMD-based coreboot-supported boards which have
an outdated board_status and are at risk of removal. The majority of
these boards (with the exception of PC engines apu2//3//4//5) - do not
require a closed source AMD PSP binary to run, and ( also compared to
many Intel boards
11 matches
Mail list logo