David Hendricks has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36328 )
Change subject: [RFC] Documentation/fsp: Discuss FSP-S issues ......................................................................
Patch Set 4:
(2 comments)
Let me translate this... you say one should stop discussing a topic just because the opponent does not want to discuss it?
No, I am saying that it's practically impossible for somebody from Intel to address legal concerns in a public forum. It has to do with typical corporate processes for handling these types of things, not whether or not they want to.
OTOH there are reputable companies in the community such as Google, Siemens, and others who have presumably done their due diligence and are obviously fine with shipping hardware with coreboot and FSP. The concerns mentioned in the earlier versions of this patch do not reflect those of the community as a whole, which is another reason they should not be in Documentation/.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36328/4/Documentation/fsp/fsp-s_dis... File Documentation/fsp/fsp-s_discussion.md:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36328/4/Documentation/fsp/fsp-s_dis... PS4, Line 56: several FSP bugs, but they hardly ever got addressed. This means I've also been told that validating a new FSP binary is a very time-consuming and expensive process for Intel. Unfortunately this means that there is very little chance of getting a new FSP binary published to fix bugs or implement features that are deemed non-critical, especially on older products (even popular ones such as Baytrail and Broadwell-DE).
So while FSP has been useful in getting products up and running initially, the ongoing support model has not worked out well. It's difficult for Intel to implement a fix FSP, validate it, and release a new binary and it's also impossible for community members to fix FSP on their own.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36328/4/Documentation/fsp/fsp-s_dis... PS4, Line 194: or raise legal concerns
Why? Elaborate?
let's not open that can of worms...