On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 11:40 AM ron minnich wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:59 PM Karl Semich <0xl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> We are deprecating ALL boards on oreboot that need FSP, as we took the
> >> decision a few weeks ago to drop boards
> >> that require blobs on the main CPU (we're
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:59 PM Karl Semich <0xl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We are deprecating ALL boards on oreboot that need FSP, as we took the
>> decision a few weeks ago to drop boards
>> that require blobs on the main CPU (we're accepting PSP blobs for now)
>
>
> Just a quick note that our
>
> We are deprecating ALL boards on oreboot that need FSP, as we took the
> decision a few weeks ago to drop boards
> that require blobs on the main CPU (we're accepting PSP blobs for now)
>
Just a quick note that our society basically has the technology to
automatically reimplement binary blobs
Here's a list for coreboot.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/63797
Martin
Apr 22, 2022, 18:46 by rminn...@gmail.com:
> oh oops the person doing that misunderstood me, we'll have to fix it
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 5:41 PM Martin Roth wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Ron,
>> I think this is a
oh oops the person doing that misunderstood me, we'll have to fix it
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 5:41 PM Martin Roth wrote:
>
> Hey Ron,
> I think this is a good plan. We can make a markdown file doing the same.
> I'm not sure that coreboot wants to record where it's deleted, but instead
> the
we may be saying the same thing, but that commit in our file is the
"check this out to get this board" ref.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 5:41 PM Martin Roth wrote:
>
> Hey Ron,
> I think this is a good plan. We can make a markdown file doing the same.
> I'm not sure that coreboot wants to
Hey Ron,
I think this is a good plan. We can make a markdown file doing the same.
I'm not sure that coreboot wants to record where it's deleted, but instead the
branch where it would be maintained.
This is the solution I was talking about in the coreboot leadership meeting:
The discussion here has been pretty helpful to my thinking. I think
the concerns people are raising are important.
We are deprecating ALL boards on oreboot that need FSP, as we took the
decision a few weeks ago to drop boards
that require blobs on the main CPU (we're accepting PSP blobs for now)
(I'm not a Coreboot dev/maintainer, so apologies for commenting from the
peanut gallery...)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 04:32:36AM +0200, Martin Roth wrote:
> [...]
> 2) Decide on a set of criteria that we can use to evaluate whether or
> not things should be removed from the master branch and
Apr 16, 2022, 08:03 by nic...@gmx.de:
> It's always a trade-off. Is the Quark code really that bad that it
> is hard to keep it along?
>
I'm not particularly looking at removing the Quark code right now. I lobbied
early on to keep it in the tree. Really, I want 2 things out of this discussion.
Apr 16, 2022, 08:32 by nic...@gmx.de:
> Hi Sheng,
>
> On 16.04.22 11:01, Sheng Lean Tan wrote:
>
>> Personally I think moving Galileo soc to stable branch is a win-win
>> situation for all of us.
>>
>
> it looks like nobody is maintaining such a stable branch yet. Would you
> volunteer to
On Sat, 2022-04-16 at 08:25 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> nico, it was not so much a matter of me jumping on the bandwagon, as
> my reluctance to get involved in another never-ending discussion over
> retiring a platform that nobody uses or cares about.
>
> But let's keep it simple. I think it's
btw, if you are interested in looking at new abstractions intended to
resolve some of the issues we are discussing here, that's what oreboot
is all about.
We did just drop the fsp platforms, because we decided there is no
interest in binary blobs for oreboot, but other than that ... if you
like
nico, it was not so much a matter of me jumping on the bandwagon, as
my reluctance to get involved in another never-ending discussion over
retiring a platform that nobody uses or cares about.
But let's keep it simple. I think it's clear that the effort to
maintain the Quark is > 0. The number of
Hi Sheng,
On 16.04.22 11:01, Sheng Lean Tan wrote:
> Personally I think moving Galileo soc to stable branch is a win-win situation
> for all of us.
it looks like nobody is maintaining such a stable branch yet. Would you
volunteer to maintain one for Quark? AIUI, some people already want to
take
On 12.04.22 23:22, Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> Apr 12, 2022, 12:14 by f...@mniewoehner.de:
>> Maintaining without ability to test will make it degrade, too.
>>
> Exactly. By moving it to a branch, if someone wants to work on a platform,
> they can do it in a more stable environment.
I
Hello Ron,
I agree with most what you are saying in general. However, I find it
very concerning that you make it about Quark. Are you sure you are
not just jumping on the bandwagon because people started to pick on
Quark? There are probably many boards in the tree that are even more
abandoned and
Hi all,
Adding some thoughts from my side:
Firstly, I didn’t expect this topic will be going on for so long, which shows
that people really care about the hard work had been put together all these
years to support a soc and we need to be sensitive to that. This kind of
openness actually keep
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 06:28:37PM +, Zimmer, Vincent wrote:
> Andy Pont wrote:
>> Vincent wrote:
>>> I can provide some Galileo h/w for folks if there is interest in
>>> supporting.
>>
>> [..] If you have both and can get them shipped to the UK that would
>> be great. I suspect I have power
>
>
> In round numbers, coreboot is at about 5k commits/year (last time I
> looked; maybe it's higher or lower now). Assuming each CL takes
> around ten builds, that's 50,000 builds, times 350 boards, which
> translates to "a lot." It keeps Martin's house warm, I suspect. That's
> not counting
April 15, 2022 11:13 AM
> To: Zimmer, Vincent ; Karl Semich
> <0xl...@gmail.com>; lpleah...@gmail.com
> Cc: Coreboot
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] Re: Deprecation of the Intel Quark SoC
>
>
>
> Vincent wrote...
>
>
> > I can provide some Galileo h/w for fol
ct: Re: [coreboot] Re: Deprecation of the Intel Quark SoC
Vincent wrote...
> I can provide some Galileo h/w for folks if there is interest in supporting.
Looking at the configs it looks like both a Gen 1 and Gen 2 Galileo boards are
the place to start?
If you have both and can get them shipped
Vincent wrote...
> I can provide some Galileo h/w for folks if there is interest in supporting.
Looking at the configs it looks like both a Gen 1 and Gen 2 Galileo boards are
the place to start?
If you have both and can get them shipped to the UK that would be great. I
suspect I have power
Michael Niewöhner wrote:
> Once again, nobody is talking about deleting the platform or make it unusable.
Moving a board to a branch includes deleting it on master.
Deleting on master harms the board in two ways:
* Board code loses visibility, which also harms the project as a whole.
(Less
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:44 PM Martin Roth via coreboot <
coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
> Apr 14, 2022, 14:06 by 0xl...@gmail.com:
>
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> >> I think we all agree that it'd be good to have test racks that have
> all of the boards in the coreboot repository for verification,
Apr 14, 2022, 14:06 by 0xl...@gmail.com:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> I think we all agree that it'd be good to have test racks that have all of
>> the boards in the coreboot repository for verification, however that's
>> currently not practical with the resources we have. The whole thing just
>> isn't
Karl,
On Thu, 2022-04-14 at 16:06 -0400, Karl Semich wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> > I think we all agree that it'd be good to have test racks that have all of
> > the boards in the coreboot repository for verification, however that's
> > currently not practical with the resources we have. The whole
;
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 1:19 PM
To: lpleah...@gmail.com
Cc: Coreboot
Subject: [coreboot] Re: Deprecation of the Intel Quark SoC
I'm sending an email directly to the board committer since nobody has mentioned
the history and is responding to my idea a lot.
Lee, do you still have your
Ron wrote...
> do you have a way to recover if the flash fails?
Current programming hardware includes...
Dataman 40-Pro
Dediprog EM100
Dediprog SF100
Totalphase Aardvark
Several CH341A devices
Failing that, I have a soldering iron and hot air rework station!
Hopefully one of them will work!
Apr 14, 2022, 14:18 by 0xl...@gmail.com:
> I'm sending an email directly to the board committer since nobody has
> mentioned the history and is responding to my idea a lot.
> Lee, do you still have your quark galileo board? Are you at all able to test
> a new build or package equipment to
I'm sending an email directly to the board committer since nobody has
mentioned the history and is responding to my idea a lot.
Lee, do you still have your quark galileo board? Are you at all able to
test a new build or package equipment to mail to a volunteer?
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 4:13 PM ron
do you have a way to recover if the flash fails?
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:09 PM Andy Pont wrote:
>
> Karl wrote…
>
> >Obviously a way to sidestep all this would be to simply test the board
> >in question, which is a small investment of money and time.
> There is still one of these boards (Intel
Karl wrote…
>Obviously a way to sidestep all this would be to simply test the board
>in question, which is a small investment of money and time.
There is still one of these boards (Intel Galileo) available on eBay
here in the UK. I can likely commit the time to test coreboot on that
board but
Hi Martin,
> I think we all agree that it'd be good to have test racks that have all
> of the boards in the coreboot repository for verification, however that's
> currently not practical with the resources we have. The whole thing just
> isn't a simple problem to solve.
>
Often the biggest
Apr 13, 2022, 06:10 by 0xl...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 6:26 AM Patrick Georgi <> patr...@coreboot.org> > wrote:
>
>> Am 12.04.2022 um 23:54 schrieb Karl Semich:
>> > Obviously a way to sidestep all this would be to simply test the board
>> > in question, which is a small investment
Hi
When platforms stand in the way of improving the general code base, I think
that's it's not controversial
to ask people to either step up and do necessary maintenance or move the
platform to a branch. Past examples of
that would things like dropping romcc bootblock, car global, ...
When a
The documentation for this board was removed in 184d5d04296 .
___
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
Michael Niewöhner wrote:
> > But once code is moved off master reuse of changes on master will
> > eventually become impossible and there's no good path to recover from
> > that situation, so it should be important to avoid such dead ends for
> > any code we want to stay usable - IMO all code.
>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 6:26 AM Patrick Georgi wrote:
> Am 12.04.2022 um 23:54 schrieb Karl Semich:
> > Obviously a way to sidestep all this would be to simply test the board
> > in question, which is a small investment of money and time.
> I appreciate that you volunteer to do that for Quark.
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 01:03 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 22:23 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > > Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> > > > > 1) Please don't use the term deprecate - use "moved to a branch"
> > > >
> > > > I don't think
On Tue, 2022-04-12 at 23:22 +0200, Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
>
>
>
> Apr 12, 2022, 12:14 by f...@mniewoehner.de:
>
> > On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 22:23 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> >
> > > Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> > > > 1) Please don't use the term deprecate - use "moved to a
Am 12.04.2022 um 23:54 schrieb Karl Semich:
Obviously a way to sidestep all this would be to simply test the board
in question, which is a small investment of money and time.
I appreciate that you volunteer to do that for Quark. Can't be too bad,
it's a small investment of money and time, after
Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 22:23 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> >> Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> >> > 1) Please don't use the term deprecate - use "moved to a branch"
> >>
> >> I don't think the wording matters, my points are discoverability and
> >> drive-by
Obviously a way to sidestep all this would be to simply test the board in
question, which is a small investment of money and time.
It's sad that automated testing appears to no longer be ongoing. I might
wonder whether coreboot sponsors would support a coreboot-associated
automated test lab.
The
Apr 12, 2022, 12:14 by f...@mniewoehner.de:
> On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 22:23 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>> Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
>> > 1) Please don't use the term deprecate - use "moved to a branch"
>>
>> I don't think the wording matters, my points are discoverability and
>>
On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 22:23 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> > 1) Please don't use the term deprecate - use "moved to a branch"
>
> I don't think the wording matters, my points are discoverability and
> drive-by maintainance.
>
>
> > If a platform is perfect and
Martin Roth via coreboot wrote:
> 1) Please don't use the term deprecate - use "moved to a branch"
I don't think the wording matters, my points are discoverability and
drive-by maintainance.
> If a platform is perfect and doesn't need to be updated, it doesn't
> need to be on the master
TLDR:
1) Please don't use the term deprecate - use "moved to a branch"
2) Lets set up some rules about moving platforms/chips to a branch.
3) How do we find out what platforms are actually in use?
4) Please don't take this as an argument.We
---
First, we are not going to "Deprecate"
On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 11:25:31AM +0200, Michael Niewöhner wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-04-02 at 19:08 -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of
> Many wrote:
>> I looked up this board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Galileo
>>
>> It's discontinued, but it's open hardware, runs linux, and
On Sat, 2022-04-02 at 19:08 -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of
Many wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I looked up this board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Galileo
>
> It's discontinued, but it's open hardware, runs linux, and is
> compatible with arduino sketches and shields.
>
> That's
Hi,
I looked up this board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Galileo
It's discontinued, but it's open hardware, runs linux, and is
compatible with arduino sketches and shields.
That's very rare and valuable. It should not be removed.
If there is specific maintenance burden around a task,
On Sat, 2022-04-02 at 13:14 +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Michael Niewöhner wrote:
> > It feels this is the usual "but what if *someone* out there *needs/wants*
> > it?".
>
> Not quite, it's "why delete it if it might work?". This is still
> ideological of course, so the question becomes what we
Michael Niewöhner wrote:
> It feels this is the usual "but what if *someone* out there *needs/wants*
> it?".
Not quite, it's "why delete it if it might work?". This is still
ideological of course, so the question becomes what we find valuable.
I e.g. do not consider it at all valuable to only
On Fri, 2022-04-01 at 14:21 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> Does anyone even have one? Has anyone done a build and burn recently
> to test? Has anyone volunteered to maintain it? How much does it it
> impact other code as a special case?
>
> I threw mine out years ago.
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at
Does anyone even have one? Has anyone done a build and burn recently
to test? Has anyone volunteered to maintain it? How much does it it
impact other code as a special case?
I threw mine out years ago.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 6:19 AM Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> Felix Singer wrote:
> > to me it seems
Felix Singer wrote:
> to me it seems like the Intel Quark SoC has been unmaintained and
> unused for a long time now. So I'm proposing to deprecate the support
> for it with coreboot release 4.17 [1], in order to drop the support
> with release 4.19 so that the community has less maintenance
Dear Felix,
Am 31.03.22 um 22:55 schrieb Felix Singer:
to me it seems like the Intel Quark SoC has been unmaintained and
unused for a long time now.
Can you be more specific please?
So I'm proposing to deprecate the support
for it with coreboot release 4.17 [1], in order to drop the
go for it.
Long overdue.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 1:55 PM Felix Singer wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> to me it seems like the Intel Quark SoC has been unmaintained and
> unused for a long time now. So I'm proposing to deprecate the support
> for it with coreboot release 4.17 [1], in order to drop the
58 matches
Mail list logo
