Add feature set #90
Add feature set #90
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Michał Żygowski <michal.zygowski@3mdeb.com>
Signed-off-by: Michał Żygowski <michal.zygowski@3mdeb.com>
|
@pietrushnic I believe there is more to add. |
Signed-off-by: Michał Żygowski <michal.zygowski@3mdeb.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@miczyg1 this is very good base, but target should extend by what user use e.g. supported operating systems netboot, storage boot, installation, supported/tested hardware list etc. We should probably have features that reflect bugs we had e.g. DMI since it looks like people and distros care about that.
docs/feature-set.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| `*` - apu5 has no support for S1 | ||
| `**` - only mainline releases | ||
| `***` - apu3 seems to have inverted functionality |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@miczyg1 asterisk render incorrectly in one line not in 3. Terminology is confusing e.g. one start is for S1 and serials console, but description say about S1. Please read it through again and fix.
docs/feature-set.md
Outdated
| | Boot menu timeout 6s | YES | | ||
| | F10 button to enter boot menu | YES | | ||
| | Custom boot menu string | YES | | ||
| | N for PXe boot string | YES | |
docs/feature-set.md
Outdated
| | F10 button to enter boot menu | YES | | ||
| | Custom boot menu string | YES | | ||
| | N for PXe boot string | YES | | ||
| | PXE shadowing | YES | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@miczyg1 I'm not sure what is this.
docs/feature-set.md
Outdated
| | BIOS WP enable/disable | YES | | ||
| | Restore default options | YES | | ||
| | EHCI0 enable/disable | YES | | ||
| | Bootorder is aligned correctly | YES | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@miczyg1 security registers?
Signed-off-by: Michał Żygowski <michal.zygowski@3mdeb.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One more please try to adjust that. I know that those changes can be annoying, but I think the vision of this document clarifies right now. This would be the fundament for further testing.
One more thing is that for coreboot features support we should have https://www.coreboot.org/Board:pcengines/apu2#Status and figure out how to test that. Maybe just linking to that page would be enough but we have to fill table and prepare tests for that.
docs/feature-set.md
Outdated
| `*` - apu5 has no support for S1 | ||
| `**` - only mainline releases | ||
| `***` - apu3 seems to have inverted functionality | ||
| 1) - apu5 has no support for S1 |
docs/feature-set.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| | OS | Netinst | USB | SD | SATA | mSATA | | ||
| |----|---------|-----|----|------|-------| | ||
| | Debian stable x64 | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@miczyg1 official name for that is amd64
Signed-off-by: Piotr Król <piotr.krol@3mdeb.com>
| @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ | |||
| PC Engines apu feature set | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@miczyg1 in future we plan also to add alix
| @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ | |||
| PC Engines apu feature set | |||
| ========================== | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@miczyg1 we would like to have also TOC
| PC Engines apu feature set | ||
| ========================== | ||
|
|
||
| ## Coreboot features |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@miczyg1 let's try to follow https://www.coreboot.org/Board:pcengines/apu2 by dividing this document between platforms (one one md or multilple md). So we should have device/functionality, status, comment and test case. Our target is to have the same styling as coreboot feature list but one more column with a test case.
So this page should be divided between platforms apu1/2/3/4/5 and in future alix.
Signed-off-by: Michał Żygowski <michal.zygowski@3mdeb.com>
| | Debian stable amd64 | SD | | | | | ||
| | Debian stable amd64 | SATA | | | | | ||
| | Debian stable amd64 | mSATA | | | | | ||
| |||||| |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These empty rows acts pretty good as a seperators @pietrushnic
|
@pietrushnic do You think continuing oin this PR makes sense? Since we have theory of operation for features and asciinema? #143 |
|
@miczyg1 no it doesn't make sense it is an outdated approach - I wonder what would be a new way of confirming if the platform is supported in coreboot. We will see. |
No description provided.