[LinuxBIOS] [RFC] Call for Action: LinuxBIOS foundations
corey.osgood at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 20:26:15 CEST 2007
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Corey Osgood <corey.osgood at gmail.com> [070829 09:43]:
>> I think there should be some limits to what hardware we try to support.
>> I don't think we should be trying to support socket 7 hardware (which
>> iirc were all the chipsets you named), because for the most part those
>> PCs have either outlived their usefulness, or have done their job for so
>> many years now nobody wants to mess with it.
> If volunteers want to work on vintage hardware, lets not keep them from doing so.
> I personally think we need to support more newer hardware in shorter
> time to gain the momentum so LinuxBIOS can become the default firmware
> on new mainboards that you buy. We can make this goal, and it has been
> done in some cases. It's just a long way, as it was for Linux, too.
> Supporting old hardware of course has an academical value ;)
I'd argue that the academic value is minimal without the hardware to
actually test it on. It's not actually all that hard to write a port
that compiles and looks valid. It's much harder to make one that
>>> hardware itself but the linuxbios framework. i don't want to spend hours
>>> of code surfing just to understand how and where certain code sniplets
>>> are called or how certain config files need to be written. a
>>> documentation to the code is close to non-existant. while this might not
>>> be a problem to long-term developers it drives new ones away.
>> Agreed, I've been frustrated with this as well, even today. v3 should
>> have better documentation, but we still need to bring up to par the
>> documentation on some of the tools.
> Again,... Since you still remember _what_ you have been missing and how
> it works now, please try to provide the missing pieces before you get
> code blind.
I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean?
More information about the coreboot