[coreboot] Re: FSP 2.4: runtime blobs!

[Arthur Heymans]

Hi Laurie

I created a github issue about this
https://github.com/UniversalScalableFirmware/documentation/issues/37 almost
11 months ago with no reply.
I also don't see any discussions about FSP-I in particular in that
community but I posted my github issue again on that mailing list.

Arthur

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 6:45 PM Jarlstrom, Laurie <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to invite you to the Universal Scalable Firmware (USF)
> Community where Intel® FSP is an ingredient to a full system firmware
> solution and incorporates multiple bootloaders including coreboot.
>
> There have been discussions on the updates to Intel® FSP within this
> community
>
> https://universalscalablefirmware.groups.io/g/discussion
>
> What is USF?  Links to  USF training videos:
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLehYIRQs6PR5N73cbW8CPvU_stDTAG_j5
>
> Thanks,
>
> *Laurie*
>
> [e-mail],
>
> System Firmware Products
>
> Firmware Ecosystem & Business Dev.
>
> [phone] Mobile
>
> *From:* ron minnich 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 30, 2022 9:00 AM
> *To:* Nico Huber 
> *Cc:* Arthur Heymans ; coreboot <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [coreboot] Re: FSP 2.4: runtime blobs!
>
> note that I am having this exact same problem in the RISC-V community:
> https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc/issues/102
>
> People just like their SMM. It's hard to kill.
>
> I fear that you're not going to get much luck with Intel, which is why I
> try to work with non-Intel CPUs as much as I can nowadays.
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:58 AM Nico Huber  wrote:
>
> Hi Arthur, coreboot fellows,
>
> On 30.09.22 13:53, Arthur Heymans wrote:
> > What are your thoughts?
>
> printing, bonfire...
> > Do we take a stance against FSP-I integration in coreboot?
>
> I think we already do. From coreboot.org:
>
> "coreboot is an extended firmware platform that delivers a lightning
>    fast and secure boot experience on modern computers and embedded
>    systems. As an Open Source project it provides auditability and
>    maximum control over technology."
>
> FSP-I means exactly the opposite of most of the above points. It's
> inherently incompatible.
>
> IMO, unless we discuss if we want to change how we define coreboot
> first, there can't be a discussion about integrating FSP-I nor any
> action in that direction.
> > Are there precedents where blobs runtimes are installed on the main CPU,
> > that I don't know of which could justify FSP-I?
>
> There's something for the main CPU but definitely not the same: I was
> told AMD's binary pi can provide runtime ACPI code. But running ACPI is
> an opt-in for the OS, whilst FSP-I wouldn't even allow an opt-out, I
> guess.
> > P.S. It's quite sad to see this happen after an open letter 361 people
> > signed for a more open FSP.
>
> https://openletter.earth/adopting-open-source-firmware-approach-for-intel-fs...
>
> Sad, but not unexpected. I believe this is part of a more than a
> decade old strategy. It seems to me Intel never really supported
> open-source OS drivers for their server platforms. They just hid
> everything in SMM with a nice open-source facade for Linux. We
> turned a blind eye to that. Now it seems that the ecosystem around
> Intel servers is rather unprepared for open source. Even if they'd
> open up their SMM code, it would just be wrong to keep the code in
> SMM, IMO. Proper OS drivers should be written instead.
>
> Nico
> _______________________________________________
> coreboot mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]