> I don't understand your note at all Zoran, but I am not alone it seems.I am not one who is asking for help here. It is U-Boot creators, not knowing how to solve (particular) INTEL mess. But if you all agree with this, I have not at all problem with this mess. You asked for it, didn't you, all???And... You all do the particular solutions. Today reverse engineering, tomorrow some partial SW from who-ever-supplies-this, after tomorrow with the binary blobs. Whatever works better/best for anybody... Today one API, tomorrow another... After tomorrow something completely different! Redesigned APIs, completely. ;-)It seems that I cleared it all, didn't I?Good Luck with the sporadic solutions (whatever works the best/at all in particular cases)!ZoranOn Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:48 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM Zoran Stojsavljevic <zoran.stojsavljevic@gmail.com> wrote: Your guy Stefan is here, asking for a help. Stefan got the straight answer: FSP/Coreboot (intermingled), then U_Boot as payload... You got that?Stefan got a suggestion from me that running u-boot as a coreboot payload might be easier, as it insulates u-boot from having to deal with FSP. I also commented that I had no complaint with them running without coreboot, since the more open source firmware we have the better. Either path is fine, whatever works best for u-boot.I don't understand your note at all Zoran, but I am not alone it seems.ron