Difference between revisions of "Rating System"

From coreboot
Jump to: navigation, search
(Discuss quantitative criteria and add some ideas)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
At the coreboot summit in Denver we talked about a rating system for supported boards. The idea is to make it clear which boards are most highly recommended because the vendors cooperate.
 
At the coreboot summit in Denver we talked about a rating system for supported boards. The idea is to make it clear which boards are most highly recommended because the vendors cooperate.
  
To get to such a rating for a particular board, we should establish a list of categories with an associated score.
+
To get to such a rating for a particular board, we should establish a list of categories with an associated score.  Each fulfilled criteria should be easily verifiable as a yes or no answer.
 +
There should be no subjective elements to the rating system - only measurable criteria should be used to avoid bias or favoritism.
  
 
Adding up the scores for the major components on a board (cpu, chipsets, mainboard, others?) would give us a rating that results in a number of 'stars'.
 
Adding up the scores for the major components on a board (cpu, chipsets, mainboard, others?) would give us a rating that results in a number of 'stars'.
Line 10: Line 11:
  
 
* availability of documentation (nothing/NDA restricted == 0, NDA but free to publish code == 3, online with click through == 7, public URL == 10)
 
* availability of documentation (nothing/NDA restricted == 0, NDA but free to publish code == 3, online with click through == 7, public URL == 10)
 +
** There should be multiple categories of documentation (register set, BIOS programming guide, errata, schematics or pinouts (for motherboards)
 
* vendor participation in the coreboot project
 
* vendor participation in the coreboot project
 +
** How to quantify?
 +
* Availability of example and support code
 +
** ACPI tables
 +
* "Hackability"
 +
** LPC header, JTAG header, BIOS socket, etc.
 +
** Should we dock a board because it requires soldering or a difficult process for flashing coreboot?
 
* ...
 
* ...
  

Revision as of 18:01, 17 April 2008

Rating System

At the coreboot summit in Denver we talked about a rating system for supported boards. The idea is to make it clear which boards are most highly recommended because the vendors cooperate.

To get to such a rating for a particular board, we should establish a list of categories with an associated score. Each fulfilled criteria should be easily verifiable as a yes or no answer. There should be no subjective elements to the rating system - only measurable criteria should be used to avoid bias or favoritism.

Adding up the scores for the major components on a board (cpu, chipsets, mainboard, others?) would give us a rating that results in a number of 'stars'.

Some ideas for those categories:

  • availability of documentation (nothing/NDA restricted == 0, NDA but free to publish code == 3, online with click through == 7, public URL == 10)
    • There should be multiple categories of documentation (register set, BIOS programming guide, errata, schematics or pinouts (for motherboards)
  • vendor participation in the coreboot project
    • How to quantify?
  • Availability of example and support code
    • ACPI tables
  • "Hackability"
    • LPC header, JTAG header, BIOS socket, etc.
    • Should we dock a board because it requires soldering or a difficult process for flashing coreboot?
  • ...

As we list boards, we should also make it clear if a board is actually available for purchase. A board might get a high rating, but be unavailable for purchase, in which case it should be carefully marked as such. Board availability will change over a board's lifespan.

Should we provide a separate rating for coreboot support (i.e. the stuff above) and how good our code actually is?