[M] Change in coreboot[main]: [RFC] soc/intel/fsp_reset: Drop global-reset sanity check

[Nico Huber (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Andrey Petrov, Dinesh Gehlot, Eran Mitrani, Jakub Czapiga, Jayvik Desai, Jérémy Compostella, Kapil Porwal, Lean Sheng Tan, Nick Vaccaro, Pranava Y N, Ronak Kanabar, Sean Rhodes, Subrata Banik, Tarun, Werner Zeh.

Nico Huber has posted comments on this change by Nico Huber. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/84558?usp=email )

Change subject: [RFC] soc/intel/fsp_reset: Drop global-reset sanity check
......................................................................

Patch Set 1:

(1 comment)

File src/soc/intel/common/fsp_reset.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/84558/comment/edcee8fa_8bd7abdc?usp... :
PS1, Line 78: 		/* Use RESET_REQUIRED_3 status for global resets. Needs
            : 		   to be kept in sync with chipset_handle_reset() above. */
            : 		return FSP_STATUS_RESET_REQUIRED_3;
> So to get rid of the check, I would suggest to re-architecture a bit further:
> Have our own reset type enum reset_type { warm, cold, global, none } or enum soc_reset_type ?
> Return this type in fsp_get_pch_reset_status().
> Have a fsp_status_to_reset_type() function converting a reset status to a enum reset_type
> Simplify fsp_handle_reset():
> Use fsp_status_to_reset_type()
> print the actual type of reset (warm, cold or global) instead of the status (which is my opinion is an improvement)

I had something similar in mind when I wrote about encapsulation on your patch.
If somebody wants to look into that, I suggest we first discuss where to draw
which line.
> Call global_reset() directly ? Why do we call chipset_handle_reset() in the first place ?

I think it was implemented like this to separate things like they are in
the FSP EAS and the integration guides. fsp_handle_reset() implements the
EAS, while chipset_handle_reset() implements the integration guide.