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: > > http://www.coreboot.org/Rating_System > > 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 > is. > > 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 > > http://www.coreboot.org/PC_Engines_ALIX.1C_Vendor_Cooperation_Score > > 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. Jordan -- Jordan Crouse Systems Software Development Engineer Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
