Marshall Dawson has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/34662 )
Change subject: Documentation/binaries: Add AMD FSP documentation ......................................................................
Patch Set 7:
(1 comment)
By the way, I'm not sure how much of a service you're doing by indicating "will do" or "will rewrite". Did you see that notice about All-Comments-Resolved? Because of that new requirement, you will still need to go back and mark each of those Done, Ack, or manually Resolve in a new comment. It would seem more efficient (especially to your reviewers) to negotiate items you disagree on, as you did above, and leave the others until you repush. At that time, you'd just mark those as Done.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/34662/7/Documentation/binaries/amd/... File Documentation/binaries/amd/AMD_FSP_family_17h.md:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/34662/7/Documentation/binaries/amd/... PS7, Line 27: FSP-T calls are
Is there any plan to use FSP-T at all?
Not at this time, and I can't think of any reason why we would use it. However, my suggestion was more for plural vs. singular. I believe there is only a single FSP-T call defined in the spec, but you can check.