[coreboot] Vendor Cooperation Score
jordan.crouse at amd.com
Wed Aug 20 18:13:28 CEST 2008
On 19/08/08 20:26 -0400, Ward Vandewege wrote:
> Some of us discussed a rating system for supported boards during the summit
> in Denver earlier this year.
> Jordan started the page on the wiki a while back, and I put some effort into
> it today:
> 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
> 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?
> 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.
Sweet - now we just need to get all of our platforms evaluated.
Systems Software Development Engineer
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
More information about the coreboot