Paul Menzel 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: Code-Review+1
(5 comments)
Thank you for taking the time to write this up.
1. Please document how you created the DOCX file (I guess Pandoc) in the commit message. 2. Maybe the file could even be automatically when building the 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 99: This shows that no matter the many options that are implemented in : FSP-S … no matter *how* the many options are implemented …
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36328/4/Documentation/fsp/fsp-s_dis... PS4, Line 169: Sometimes they are closed without any resolution. Please give an example.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36328/4/Documentation/fsp/fsp-s_dis... PS4, Line 182: in the absence of such a firmware-development utopia, Maybe remove to not take away the result before the actual discussion inside Intel? Maybe find words, that there a lot of parts, where free software is a reality, like the Linux kernel.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36328/4/Documentation/fsp/fsp-s_dis... PS4, Line 185: And due to its complex nature, it is no surprise : if memory-controller initialization is kept secret. Why?
Maybe: … it is no surprise, that it is shared between frameworks and therefore developed and distributed separately.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36328/4/Documentation/fsp/fsp-s_dis... PS4, Line 194: or raise legal concerns Why? Elaborate?