-----Original Message----- From: Arthur Heymans [mailto:arthur@aheymans.xyz] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 6:26 AM To: Jay Talbott Cc: Patrick Georgi via coreboot; Patrick Georgi Subject: Re: [coreboot] Further coreboot releases, setting new standards
"Jay Talbott" jaytalbott@sysproconsulting.com writes:
I know I don't post much here, but I feel like I need to chime in on
this
thread... Perhaps it's time that SysPro becomes a louder voice in the community.
Bay Trail and Broadwell DE are both still very popular platforms, yet
neither
one of them meets the cut for any of the three criteria. So I caution
against
removing the support for either of them too hastily.
I looked into that FSP 1.0 integration code a little. It would seem to me that relocatable ramstage and C_ENVIRONMENT_BOOTBLOCK are possible. NO_CAR_GLOBAL_MIGRATION however seems rather impossible as the FSP has total control over the environment and destroys the CAR environment itself. Since I propose the standards I could offer some help to reach them.
It looks like FSP 1.0 will be dragging coreboot down for some time. Maybe we can agree not to integrate such monsters into coreboot in the future?
As far as I'm aware, Intel won't be developing anymore FSP 1.0 FSPs. It was all part of a learning curve on everybody's part during the early days of the FSP. At the same time, even for popular platforms, they won't be going back and respinning old FSP 1.0 FSPs as FSP 2.0 FSPs. So as long as these platforms are still popular, we will need to continue to support these platforms for a while even though they don't nicely fit into the utopian future of coreboot.
BTW baytrail has a non FSP port that will likely be in better shape.
Kind regards
Arthur Heymans