[coreboot-gerrit] Change in ...coreboot[master]: soc/intel/common: Implement EFI_MP_SERVICES_PPI structure APIs

[Philipp Deppenwiese (Code Review)]

Philipp Deppenwiese has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/25634 )

Change subject: soc/intel/common: Implement EFI_MP_SERVICES_PPI structure APIs
......................................................................


Patch Set 46:

> Patch Set 46:
> 
> > If Intel finds ways to make their customers ignore coreboot's license, I'll probably find ways to ignore theirs.
> 
> Intel understands and respects that coreboot is a GPL licensed project. None of this work is intended or expected to cause licensing issues, otherwise we would have never started this work in the first place. We have been very open with the community on the intent of this change - we wish to bring more openness and customization to the FSP. PI spec complaint firmware implementations have the freedom to change the MP services implementation used by the FSP, the intent is to extend that freedom to coreboot users.

Got it but we need to clarify this with our own legal team. We contacted the Software Freedom Conservancy as our organization in order to get the process started.
> 
> All our actions here are in good faith. We don't need coreboot's MP code to get FSP's job done... we have our own MP code. Our only reason for making this change is for coreboot's benefit. Why would Intel make the effort to implement a change solely for the community's benefit if we were trying to be disrespectful? 

Sure I believe that's true, please give us some time to get feedback from our legal team.
What is your deadline/roadmap?
> 
> > What I was trying to say between the lines: If Intel makes it unbearable to use FSP, people will try to work around it. What makes it unbearable? Most of all that it has its own control flow (which brings us issues like these here with MP init).
> 
> This is the technical issue that we are trying to make better here. If the community is unwilling to accept any changes to the FSP API, then we cannot improve it.

That's true.
> 
> > Well, I can't say if implementing #2 can save FSP so there is probably little use for it.
> 
> I understand that you don't like the existence of FSP, I am trying to make it better given the business constraints that mandate FSP's existence. Are you willing to work with me on this?


-- 
To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/25634
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings

Gerrit-Project: coreboot
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: Ie844e3f15f759ea09a8f3fd24825ee740151c956
Gerrit-Change-Number: 25634
Gerrit-PatchSet: 46
Gerrit-Owner: Subrata Banik <subrata.banik at intel.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Idwer Vollering <vidwer at gmail.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Martin Roth <martinroth at google.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h at gmx.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi at google.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Patrick Rudolph <siro at das-labor.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Paul Menzel <paulepanter at users.sourceforge.net>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Philipp Deppenwiese <zaolin.daisuki at gmail.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Subrata Banik <subrata.banik at intel.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply at coreboot.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com>
Gerrit-CC: Aaron Durbin <adurbin at chromium.org>
Gerrit-CC: Furquan Shaikh <furquan at google.com>
Gerrit-CC: Nathaniel L Desimone <nathaniel.l.desimone at intel.com>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:36:43 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: No
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot-gerrit/attachments/20181218/d2c67c32/attachment.html>