I still need it for BtG
Ack, let's see if we can make CB:36682 work.
IMHO, I don't see a conflict to support FSP-T. It opens an option for users. Removing the FSP-T support would force a downstream diversity.
Sorry, you might not know: optional FSP-T support has caused much friction
in the community in the past. Its supporters have often just dumped patches
into our repository and ran off, leaving maintenance to the coreboot commu-
nity. Which, then again, usually doesn't get questions about FSP answered
from Intel's FSP folks. Sometimes, it was unnecessarily enabled by default
in a broken state, causing a lot of costs for the active community. So far
it has caused more damage than provided value, Intel will have to make up
for that if they want us to keep supporting FSP-T (which seems more work
than getting rid of it anyway).
Also, downstream diversity seems unavoidable. And we have to consider whose
downstream we are talking about. So far, none of Intel's customers that want
BtG have approached or supported the coreboot community on this matter. So
one could say there is nothing to lose for us. On top, your other patch
shows that one needed downstream patches anyway. Still, the coreboot commu-
nity was leached for years, not to have no downstream patches but just to
have one less?
Here is what one of your colleagues (somewhere in the CB:36328 discussion)
said why he can only help us with FSP issues in his spare time:
"[Intel's] management is unwilling to formally assign people to
something that won't directly impact chip sales."
I'll leave it to you to infer what that means for something that doesn't
directly benefit the coreboot community. I'm not saying things have to be
or should be like that, but it was Intel who picked this fight...
(oh, and I forgot to mention that FSP-T replaces open-source code, hence
threatens to destroy coreboot)
To view, visit change 36622. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.