Change in coreboot[master]: drivers/fsp2_0: drop support for FSP-T

[Gaggery Tsai (Code Review)]

Gaggery Tsai has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/36622 )

Change subject: drivers/fsp2_0: drop support for FSP-T
......................................................................

Patch Set 5:
> Patch Set 5:
> > > > I still need it for BtG
> > >
> > > Ack, let's see if we can make CB:36682 work.
> >
> > IMHO, I don't see a conflict to support FSP-T. It opens an option for users. Removing the FSP-T support would force a downstream diversity.
>
> Sorry, you might not know: optional FSP-T support has caused much friction
> in the community in the past. Its supporters have often just dumped patches
> into our repository and ran off, leaving maintenance to the coreboot commu-
> nity. Which, then again, usually doesn't get questions about FSP answered
> from Intel's FSP folks. Sometimes, it was unnecessarily enabled by default
> in a broken state, causing a lot of costs for the active community. So far
> it has caused more damage than provided value, Intel will have to make up
> for that if they want us to keep supporting FSP-T (which seems more work
> than getting rid of it anyway).
>
> Also, downstream diversity seems unavoidable. And we have to consider whose
> downstream we are talking about. So far, none of Intel's customers that want
> BtG have approached or supported the coreboot community on this matter. So
> one could say there is nothing to lose for us. On top, your other patch
> shows that one needed downstream patches anyway. Still, the coreboot commu-
> nity was leached for years, not to have no downstream patches but just to
> have one less?
>
> Here is what one of your colleagues (somewhere in the CB:36328 discussion)
> said why he can only help us with FSP issues in his spare time:
>
> "[Intel's] management is unwilling to formally assign people to
>   something that won't directly impact chip sales."
>
> I'll leave it to you to infer what that means for something that doesn't
> directly benefit the coreboot community. I'm not saying things have to be
> or should be like that, but it was Intel who picked this fight...
>
> (oh, and I forgot to mention that FSP-T replaces open-source code, hence
> threatens to destroy coreboot)

Thank your for sharing the background as well as the info from CB:36328. I will help to do test for CB:36682 and see if I can make it work.