Re: [coreboot] BayTrail PCIe problems (hangup) in FSP (in U-Boot)

[Zoran Stojsavljevic]

Crazy context, what I am reading in this thread... Well! Annoying...
Perception (mine) it is (do you all agree)?!

Let us involve in this discussion Mr Denk (father of U-Boot, I know Mr Denk
personally)), and Mr Glass (option [B] here mentioned below)... For the
(targeted by me) purposes (History involved)!

Shall we? ;-)
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Alexander Couzens  wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> we have two versions in the tree
> [A] fsp baytrail
> [B] non-fsp baytrail but with mrc.bin as meminit *(DONE by Chromium -

HOW???*)

Lynxis (really?!?!)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbfLYSJFdWM [Ferocious
Disposition??? ;-)]

Version [B] is the one, most probably, as initial architecture, U-Boot
[Stefan Roese/Denx Systems] is using?! Coreboot is out of question/scope,
since I see that the initial email [by Mr Roese] is NOT (anyhow) understood
(well) by Coreboot designers (Peter Stuge, you do get this one, don't
you... I "somehow" appreciate/your effort)!

Since the following presented below is (I assume) true, if I am not
mistaken. Mr Denk can oppose me (please, do not hesitate, Mr Denk - killed
me few times in The Past, but...You all never know???), I am in waiting
state for this one?!
> [e-mail] writes:
> I think you are actively hurting the overall ecosystem by working on a

different
> project (FSP in U-Boot) which overlaps with Coreboot efforts.

Peter (Stuge),

This is VERY correct statement... You already mentioned: It is NOT INTEL
FSP, per say?

It is something I am fighting for years for/in the STRONG interests of
U-Boot/Open Source: to have consistent strategy with INTEL IOTG management
which they ignored/have dominant/aggressive strategy to walk over the Open
Source people, people at all (please, INTEL Legal, try to oppose me.. Be my
guests, make my day, I know U R watching)?!

*> [e-mail]  writes:*

*> The only thing that makes sense is for U-Boot to focus on being a>
payload that is started by coreboot (this has already been done) and> for
your issues to be solved within the coreboot frame.*

Peter (Stuge),

Although I DO 100% agree with you what you did write (about U-Boot
politics) in your very first email about DENX Systems (surprising, isn't
it), with the *last statement* presented here do NOT agree at all!?

This is a (mild per say denial) noise, my dear friend. "BS" (sorry)... To
start Coreboot FSP and then to have U-Boot payload as third stage boot
loader???

GOOGLE would like to have this as concept, don't you agree (huge
controlling interests involved)?

NOPE! NO GO. Please. Please?! ;-)

Peter...

And, since (in contrary to you) I am VERY familiar with/what DENX Systems
does (I am, believe me)... U-Boot should/MUST to be freed of GOOGLE/INTEL
behemoths... OK?

So, I am leaving (huge interest) credits to Chromium... Which are (anyhow
by politically correct) slaves to GOOGLE interests... ;-)

*ARE THEY, MR. RON MINNICH???*

OFF TOPIC: Got the point (I am as we speak in Belgrade, and going to play
Street Ball (Ada Ciganlija) with the street people... Hey?)???
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Alexander Couzens  wrote:
> Do you tried to use coreboot (w/o FSP) + u-boot instead? Or is this out

of scope?

This is complete nonsense, and you all know it... Forced by INTEL to
protect their own interests, in very cruel/selfich way! NO GO! Please!
_______

I did NOT want to offend anybody in this list (if anybody, after all, feels
offended), At The End of The Day, I do NOT care... But you all should think
what I really wrote here...

Please, think it through???

Thank you,
Zoran Stojsavljevic
_______

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Alexander Couzens  wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> we have two versions in the tree
> a) fsp baytrail
> b) non-fsp baytrail but with mrc.bin as meminit
>
> Do you tried to use coreboot (w/o FSP) + u-boot instead? Or is this out
> of scope?
>
> Best,
> lynxis
> --
> Alexander Couzens
>
> mail: [e-mail]
> jabber: [e-mail]
> mobile: [phone]
> gpg: 390D CF78 8BF9 AA50 4F8F  F1E2 C29E 9DA6 A0DF 8604