[coreboot-gerrit] Change in coreboot[master]: [RFC] Documentation/fsp: Discuss FSP-S issues

[Michael Niewöhner (Code Review)]

Michael Niewöhner 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:

(1 comment)

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 155: Missing Communication and Responsibility
> > It feels like Intel tries to sell a license for using a CPU/SoC instead of selling the hardware itself...
> We have zero interest in license revenue for our firmware. The cost of developing the firmware for the SoC is included in the price of the SoC itself.

That's why I said "it feels like". I just wanted to say that it feels like the hardware I bought isn't mine, really.
> I am not aware of a single modern performance competitive chipset/SoC that does not require software/firmware provided by the silicon vendor in order to function.

Just like Werner I wonder why this is needed at all? Just make it completely open-source. This would be a perfect sales argument for Intel! All open! No secrets! ;-)
> However, we do not have any obligation to provide some sort of FSP help desk.

This is exactly the problem. Intel forces us to use undocumented blobs but doesn't provide (or too little) help. Make it open, then we can write the code and Intel does not need to provide FSP help - win, win.