On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 4:19 AM Nico Huber wrote:
>
> On 21.06.23 04:58, David Hendricks wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:41 PM Peter Stuge wrote:
> >> ron minnich wrote:
> >>> And, yes, no question, this is an activity that likely occurs less than it
> >>> should. Such is our industry.
> >>
On 21.06.23 04:58, David Hendricks wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:41 PM Peter Stuge wrote:
>> ron minnich wrote:
>>> And, yes, no question, this is an activity that likely occurs less than it
>>> should. Such is our industry.
>>
>> Such is project policy. Maybe because it's the lowest common
On 21.06.23 01:23, ron minnich wrote:
> The approach in the last 24 years (of this unsustainable project :-) has
> been to get several mainboards of a type, and, once we have them, try to
> work out what code is truly common and what code is similar but not truly
> common.
AFAICT, for the last
On 21.06.23 01:07, Peter Stuge wrote:
> (sorry if you receive this twice)
>
> David Hendricks wrote:
>> it will be easier to refactor portions of the code with the large
>> patches merged in a buildable and (hopefully) usable/testable state.
>
> That's pretty weak sauce and I think you all know
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:41 PM Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> ron minnich wrote:
> > And, yes, no question, this is an activity that likely occurs less than it
> > should. Such is our industry.
>
> Such is project policy. Maybe because it's the lowest common
> denominator in industry.
The project's
ron minnich wrote:
> And, yes, no question, this is an activity that likely occurs less than it
> should. Such is our industry.
Such is project policy. Maybe because it's the lowest common
denominator in industry.
> It is not possible to know, a priori, what those common pieces will be.
I
The approach in the last 24 years (of this unsustainable project :-) has
been to get several mainboards of a type, and, once we have them, try to
work out what code is truly common and what code is similar but not truly
common.
Code that is truly common can then be factored out into places such
(sorry if you receive this twice)
David Hendricks wrote:
> it will be easier to refactor portions of the code with the large
> patches merged in a buildable and (hopefully) usable/testable state.
That's pretty weak sauce and I think you all know deep down.
Who pays for refactoring? Probably
Thanks everyone for this great discussion. I looked at making
Transformers a variant of Archer City CRB, but came to the conclusion
that others foresaw which is that a multi-vendor variant model is not
a good fit in this case.
In this case the SOC support is new to the tree and we have boards
Thanks again everyone for chipping in, this was a pleasant discussion (a
bit surprise to me TBH :D )
I agree with Nico and Ron, and also with Angel's suggestion. For now, we
can let the MB code go in first, and if there is something in common we can
always restructure it, like we used to before.
There have always been two approaches to new mainboards in coreboot.
The first, "copy and convert", is to take the most similar board, copy the
code, and then change it. I believe this is the strategy paul is unhappy
with.
The second, "embrace and extend", is to modify existing board in place to
On 19.06.23 23:01, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Am 19.06.23 um 22:31 schrieb Martin Roth:
>> Duplicated code between mainboards isn't a big issue in my opinion.
>> It allows the boards to be customized without worrying about other
>> companies' mainboards. We've tried to make mainboards as small as we
>>
Dear Martin,
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer.
Am 19.06.23 um 22:31 schrieb Martin Roth:
Duplicated code between mainboards isn't a big issue in my opinion.
It allows the boards to be customized without worrying about other
companies' mainboards. We've tried to make
Duplicated code between mainboards isn't a big issue in my opinion. It allows
the boards to be customized without worrying about other companies' mainboards.
We've tried to make mainboards as small as we can, and we can keep refactoring
things out where it makes sense.
If some common code fits
Hi Paul, list,
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023, 16:16 Paul Menzel wrote:
> [Annie, Yiwei, I only added you to Cc. It’d be great if you made sure
> that all involved people are subscribed to the coreboot mailing list.]
>
> Dear coreboot folks,
>
>
> Two server boards based on Intel Archer City board, commit
15 matches
Mail list logo
