[coreboot] Vendor Cooperation Score
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Wed Aug 20 03:20:40 CEST 2008
On 20.08.2008 02:26, Ward Vandewege wrote:
> The idea is that boards get a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' from zero to five
> 'hares', based on how easy the vendor makes it for us to port coreboot to a
> board. We want to reward good vendor behavior, rather than punish less
> desirable behavior. Board vendors should strive to get more hares for their
> products :)
> I think the rating system needs more thought, and I'd be grateful for anyone
> who wants to help.
> In particular I'd like to see the 'Example and support code' section fleshed
> out a bit more; some examples of code like that and/or vendors doing the
> right thing would be great. I'm a little fuzzy as to what kind of code this
"Provides example code via e-mail, no NDA/license agreement required"
should be equivalent to web page with click-through license or better.
"Code is freely available under a free software license. It can be
downloaded on the web after agreeing to a click-through license." What
happens if the click-through license is the GPL?
> Also, the score is heavily skewed towards documentation right now (80 out of
> 124 points). I think that is fine but others may think otherwise.
> I just made up the hackability scores - do they make sense to people? Should
> a JTAG header be rewarded higher than it is?
IIRC for some processors a JTAG header is simply not an option.
> I've added a 'Vendor Cooperation Score' column on the supported motherboards
> page (for v3, if there is no objection I'll add it for v2 too).
> I also made a sample rating page for the PC Engines Alix.1C
> It would be nice to see rating pages for other boards - the Artec Group
> boards should score better than the Alix.1C, for instance.
> Feedback very welcome. And feel free to edit away on the wiki, of course.
Nice. Thanks for working on this.
More information about the coreboot