> Serious stuff, sure. But it has been done before (without anyone being> payed for it, FWIW). And compared to the ME firmware we know what it> has to do _and_ don't have to hack into anything to get our code running.
I would not say so. I know about the history, and I know a bit about IVB and BYT GOOGLE orthogonal connections to CCG. Well... INTEL cut these ties, and now, again, Coreboot is back these days to FSP binary blobs (even more complex as before, but, seems, there is a better chance to reverse engineer some parts of it), and similar "venues".
> Why ME first? What is a free ME good for if you don't control the main
> (um, how to call it if both are x86?) processor?
On another hand, I should/will agree with you that this, what you have presented/proposed here, sounds like a plan. Yes, it will be nice to have all FSP as (open) source code. But I would not run away from/postpone disabling/neutralising ME after ME is up and running, just to have it excluded from the up and running system equation.
The complete exclusion, I am afraid, at this point in time, is not possible (since ME plays core part in bringing up the whole system, especially in early boot, before even BIOS/FSP starts running). To be more specific, up to establishing HECI interface.
Anyway, I am learning more, diving deeper in, as we speak. In both directions: [1] BIOS PEI phase, [2] ME boot up. Long way to go. As I estimate now the effort. I guess! :-)
Zoran