[coreboot] v3 activity: all-time low

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Tue Jul 8 18:27:04 CEST 2008

On 08.07.2008 17:44, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 08/07/08 08:21 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
>> I would be willing to bet that a lot of that patch activity was me,
>> and I've been pulled away to other things. We need more people
>> involved. It is true that the path of least resistance is v2 -- it's
>> here and it works. But we need people to take the hard path and get on
>> v3. I can tell you, that once you get going on it, you won't want to
>> go back. v3 is really nice.
>> I guess v2 works too well :-)
> Here's the problem.  Based on the number of email and IRC requests,
> it is clear that RS690/SB600 code is in great demand.   And right
> behind that we hear clamoring for RS780/SB700 and Barcelona B3.
> We currently have two choices - we can go for V3, which would give
> us big style points but our fans will probably be disappointed while
> we spend the time to iron out the wrinkles.  Or we can go for V2 and
> run the risk of continuing to prop up the legacy code.  Our hope is 
> that eventually v3 will catch up with us, and we can seamlessly switch
> to v3 for some future chipset or processor.
> Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to do both, and you will forgive
> us if we go the path of least resistance for our customers.  I think that
> most every other commercial vendor in this project faces the same 
> dilemma.

And I am immensely thankful that AMD is creating support for new
chipsets. More supported chipsets mean more users which means more
developers (to some extent). This indirectly benefits v3, so a big
"thank you" from me.

> The solution is to recruit a new generation of developers who
> are willing to take the time and effort of moving our primary processors
> and chipsets to v3 and stabilizing it to the point where the customers
> can reliably move.  This has already happened for the most part for 
> the Geode LX with positive results.  Once we solve the few remaining warts,
> then there would be no reason to use V2 for LX.

Fully agreed.

> Speaking strictly for myself, I do think that v3 is the way to go, and we
> look forward to when we can recommend it to our customers.  But we just 
> can't justify the extra time and effort at this point, and judging from
> the emails asking for SB600 code, neither can you.

I'm happy with the priorities you outline and hope we'll reach the
"customer recommendable" milestone soon.

> PS: And I apologize personally for doing more to damage v3 and LAR then
> any other three developers - I mean well, I promise! :)

Stirring things up is a great way to get people thinking about the grand
scheme of things. You invested a lot of time analyzing LAR and the SELF
proposal was a great way to advance our understanding of it. Although no
commits resulted from it, I see your actions as very beneficial, not
damaging. I hope to prepare a proposal incorporating your SELF design
together with a slightly modified LAR design in the next few weeks.



More information about the coreboot mailing list