On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Ivan Ivanov qmastery16@gmail.com wrote:
I think, by "The Right Direction" he meant having the open source code instead of FSP-S blobs. 'Why do we have FSP-S' - I have the same question. Why this code must be kept closed, Intel? Open source is always better than closed, and your major competitor - AMD - would not be able to use your source code - not just because of the licenses, but because your CPUs are so different
Bruce Griffith's e-mail about AMD's binary PI provides some great insights into these issues: https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2014-November/078892.html
IMO the lesson is that processes for open sourcing firmware are very costly and time-consuming. If we want open source firmware to be considered from the start of a product development cycle, we need to demonstrate that coreboot will add value and that the development processes will not be too costly or burdensome.
It took Linux many years to become such a valuable part of the ecosystem that vendors hire kernel developers to write open source drivers. Coreboot is slowly getting to that point, and Chromebooks are setting a good example for how to do it. Ranting and making unfeasible demands does not help. Working with vendors to toward a more open future and proving our worth by shipping real products does.