Arthur, you are not making an argument that any vendor should release their source code as opensource. I agree that all of this code should be reviewed, but if we complain about code quality and lack of testing for open sourced code, but don't for closed source, that's an argument against any company opening their codebases.
Instead of phrasing it this way, maybe say something like, "Thanks AMD for releasing this, now community, let's get together and review and improve things." Just my opinion, and I'm intentionally replying off list. But I'll say that I'm going to fight *very* hard to keep the AGESA codebases in coreboot for as long as there are people testing it. Doing otherwise is again, a disincentive to companies for opening their sourcecode. Take care. Martin May 17, 2022, 08:47 by art...@aheymans.xyz: > Hi > We spend more time debating whether to keep AGESA in the master branch than > actually reviewing code to maintains it. > Here are some patches series I would like to be tested & reviewed: > Agesa was never properly linked and relied on default linker behavior to > append unmatched data. Here is the fix: > > https://review.coreboot.org/q/topic:AGESA_DATA > Use MRC cache for non volatile data > > https://review.coreboot.org/q/topic:AGESA_MRC_CACHE > Use CLFLUSH to make sure code hits DRAM and incidently avoid inconsistent > MTRRs (bonus is compressed postcar stage): > > https://review.coreboot.org/q/topic:compress_postcar > Kind regards > Arthur > _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
