Okay, I returned your boards but added a note that "no board_status
report yet". Hopefully you could submit them in the near future, at
least for the archival purposes. And there's a similar question to
someone else who added "Asus P8H61-M Pro" despite that the latest
report for it is one year
I added those devices, all of which I have in my possession and were tested
over the weekend with TOT. I'd not yet had a chance to upload board status
for them, but figured knowing a good range of platforms/boards were known
working just prior to release was useful (and the purpose of the list)
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:55 AM Mike Banon wrote:
> If the upstream edk2 is so bad - have you tried to upstream your set
> of patches? It is good that your personal fork/repo is stable, but
> inevitably it will always lag behind the upstream, not benefiting from
> some new features and bugfixes.
On 03.06.19 16:13, Mike Banon wrote:
Just noticed that someone included i.e. some Purism Librem devices to
a " Recently tested mainboards: " section - but, when I check
https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/board-status.git/log/purism , the
latest board status for Purism happened even before 4.9 !
Thank you very much, Evgeny, and luckily I could see your additions
here: https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist
( https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/board-status.git/log/ - Lenovo T420
, Lenovo X200 , Lenovo X220 , Lenovo T530 baseboard )
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:12 PM Evgeny
Just noticed that someone included i.e. some Purism Librem devices to
a " Recently tested mainboards: " section - but, when I check
https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/board-status.git/log/purism , the
latest board status for Purism happened even before 4.9 ! And without
a recent enough _public_
If the upstream edk2 is so bad - have you tried to upstream your set
of patches? It is good that your personal fork/repo is stable, but
inevitably it will always lag behind the upstream, not benefiting from
some new features and bugfixes. Same reason why I didn't want to fork
a coreboot despite
there is no "stable" branch for upstream edk2 though. Previously, coreboot
used an arbitrary commit as stable, and applied ~7 patches on top if it to
make it functional. Even the UDK201x branches don't boot without patches
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 3:30 PM Lance Zhao wrote:
> Tianocore master
Tianocore master branch build from edk2 will break, but that had been quite
some time. Stable branch is working fine though.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 3:28 AM Matt DeVillier
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:27 PM Mike Banon wrote:
>
>>
>> Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore
Your plan worked, I've just uploaded board status for 4 more boards.
On 6/2/19 9:26 PM, Mike Banon wrote:
> I've just added a "Recently tested mainboards:" section to the end of
> https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist . I think its'
> existence could encourage the people to
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:27 PM Mike Banon wrote:
>
> Also, regarding the significant changes: " ### Tianocore UEFI
> integrated as payload " . I hope it doesn't mean that Tianocore will
> become the default payload, since there are ideological/technical
> reasons against this ( I think there's a
I've just added a "Recently tested mainboards:" section to the end of
https://piratenpad.de/p/coreboot4.10-release-checklist . I think its'
existence could encourage the people to submit a board status report
for their board, to increase its' visibility and attract more
potential users/developers
12 matches
Mail list logo
