Hi Ron,
On 02.11.2017 16:20, ron minnich wrote:
Simon Glass has done excellent work with making u-boot run as a coreboot payload for at least 5 years now. You might want to talk to him. It might help avoid a lot of unnecessary work. Just a thought.
I'm in contact with Simon, thanks for the notice. He also did a lot of work on getting U-Boot running as a standalone bootloader on some x86 platforms (e.g. MinnowMax). I understand that it is debatable, if this is "needed" or not. Even though diversity might help all parties - at least from my point of view.
In this special case, I might have triggered a bug / issue in the Intel FSP and solving this might also help the coreboot project / community.
Thanks, Stefan
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:31 AM Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se mailto:peter@stuge.se> wrote:
Hi Stefan, Stefan Roese wrote: > I'm facing a PCIe init related problem most likely caused in the > Intel FSP in our BayTrail U-Boot port (not coreboot!). I hope you > don't mind me posting this question on this coreboot list, since > here many more people are present with Intel FSP knowledge. I think you are actively hurting the overall ecosystem by working on a different project (FSP in U-Boot) which overlaps with coreboot efforts. 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. Anything else is an obviously selfish effort by Denx and I don't see why the coreboot community would support that. Please know that I have no bias against Denx, since I had no experience with Denx I thus far always erred on the side of giving benefit of the doubt. At the very least, you should have framed your question in a coreboot setting, if you want to engage with the coreboot community. That is of course still very much possible. //Peter -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org <mailto:coreboot@coreboot.org> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:44 AM Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:
In this special case, I might have triggered a bug / issue in the Intel FSP and solving this might also help the coreboot project / community.
Sounds good to me. I have no complaint with what you're doing; the more people working to open up firmware, the better. Good luck!
ron
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
Hi Alexander,
On 03.11.2017 04:32, Alexander Couzens wrote:
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?
We have not tried this yet, thanks for the tip. Right now, I'm still trying to find a solution for this FSP issue. If this is not possible, then your suggestion might be an option, yes.
Thanks, Stefan
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 lynxis@fe80.eu 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?!
peter@stuge.se 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)?!
*> peter@stuge.se peter@stuge.se 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 lynxis@fe80.eu 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 lynxis@fe80.eu 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: lynxis@fe80.eu jabber: lynxis@fe80.eu mobile: +4915123277221 gpg: 390D CF78 8BF9 AA50 4F8F F1E2 C29E 9DA6 A0DF 8604
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot