Re: [coreboot] Reducing FSP performance time

[Nico Huber]

Hi Antony,

On 10/26/18 6:50 AM, Antony AbeePrakash X V wrote:
> ID:952 - 953 is FSP_TEMP_RAM_EXIT which takes around 1.7 sec. Below are the queries:

FSP's temp-ram function is redundant with proper coreboot code. I can
only advice against using an FSP function if an open-source version
exists. With the open-source path you'd have much more insight in what
happens.

Maybe switching to the native coreboot code already helps reducing the
delay.

Nico

Reducing FSP performance time

[Antony AbeePrakash X V]

Hi Nico,

Thanks for your reply.

Do you mean that we can skip  FSP's temp-ram function and use alternate function from coreboot ?

We are new to this. Can you please share some sample code which  skips this FSP temp RAM function ?

Thanks & Regards,
Antony

-----Original Message-----
From: Nico Huber [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:19 AM
To: Antony AbeePrakash X V 
Cc: Aaron Durbin ; Coreboot 
Subject: Re: [coreboot] Reducing FSP performance time

Hi Antony,

On 10/26/18 6:50 AM, Antony AbeePrakash X V wrote:
> ID:952 - 953 is FSP_TEMP_RAM_EXIT which takes around 1.7 sec. Below are the queries:

FSP's temp-ram function is redundant with proper coreboot code. I can only advice against using an FSP function if an open-source version exists. With the open-source path you'd have much more insight in what happens.

Maybe switching to the native coreboot code already helps reducing the delay.

Nico
L&T Technology Services Ltd

www.LntTechservices.comhttp://www.lnttechservices.com/

This Email may contain confidential or privileged information for the intended recipient (s). If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disseminate the information, notify the sender and delete it from your system.