[coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

[Zoran Stojsavljevic]

> Our recommendation for some time has been a mix -- arm64 client devices
> (laptops, tablets, etc.) and ppc64el servers.  With those two, you can
> replace x86 entirely if you don't have proprietary software in your
> environment.

With all due respect, this is the discussion about Coreboot going into
The Right Direction! This is what I actually aimed for. :-)

I bet, there should be the effort to keep arm64 BSPs completely opened
(100% source code). This is the key point in this discussion! Very
soon Debian 10 will roll out, and they/Debian maintainers committed to
full arm64 support. As my best understanding is.

If both architectures (arm64 and ppc64el) CAN replace x86_64
architecture, and capture some significant market percentage, INTEL
will recognize the considerable loss of the market share and start
doing what (correctly) people are asking here (on this list) for
years, and years... And years!

Just IMHO.

Zoran
_______

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Timothy Pearson
<tpearson at raptorengineering.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 05/01/2018 01:30 PM, Julius Werner wrote:
>>> All the ARM64 boards I've seen that are desktop or higher class ship
>>> with AMI UEFI and AMI BMC.  Plus they contain their own magic blobs,
>>> some akin to the ME.  ARM64 is not a panacea either; OpenPOWER's
>>> actually shipping open POWER9 systems right now with source code.  Why
>>> not go down that route?
>>
>> Can we please stop bashing each other about whose architecture is better? I
>> haven't seen any POWER9 systems of laptop or lower class shipping either.
>> What makes one more important than the other?
>>
>> We actually have several ARM64 boards in the repository right now where you
>> can walk into a store and buy them for a couple hundred bucks, and install
>> fully open-source blob-free firmware on them straight from the coreboot
>> master branch. It would be great if the POWER port of coreboot can
>> eventually see this level of success as well. That's just more choice for
>> the users.
>>
>> I have also personally spent a bunch of time arguing with Arm SoC vendors
>> about open-sourcing their code and I think we can be pretty happy with what
>> we've achieved so far, even though we can always try to do even better. The
>> reason those ARM64 servers are heading the x86 route of running proprietary
>> UEFI (and, worst of all, implementing ACPI) is because no corporation with
>> sufficient influence is trying to guide them in the other direction. If it
>> wasn't for Chromebooks, the Arm laptop market might be going the same way.
>> That is also corporate influence.
>
> Don't mean to bash anyone.  I get frustrated at times with the messages
> on here from people that want something they can't have (basically,
> cheap, powerful, and open -- pick two), and just wanted to say that
> there are open systems *right now*, no vendor coaxing needed.
>
> Our recommendation for some time has been a mix -- arm64 client devices
> (laptops, tablets, etc.) and ppc64el servers.  With those two, you can
> replace x86 entirely if you don't have proprietary software in your
> environment.
>
> - --
> Timothy Pearson
> Raptor Engineering
> +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line)
> +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard)
> https://www.raptorengineering.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJa6LWJAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbcecIAKsBbAJXAoKukrjhQhrkuP7z
> ktNyJVlifl2T04DZ/TfihdnMfA9tRu+iNnnYEGbmdVpRxx2mVtUebImc5Sl/GKoJ
> oQmnRFF0MdXJUMvMSTtXUn9v6Ylq8jj9YIpi3hu1gQrRB7EtCNlcnZJFwnMaaTzV
> Xov48xgxhzZ9Wat5Mu447kOpcebUzVM1BwFDxf0kcyZxAe742I5t86S2RDAxAaMZ
> 4DoAHq1aB/PR9cjXQMkn2EV6hg3Xn4/rxHkNqOxI3PwU7lSYEBgZCyom8JVhixAQ
> TNzvthHanakV8xX57y23vibANAmeLII/v6D7z6bNZt9B54XRdsqFTDGM02/C79Y=
> =Cv5s
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot