[coreboot] INTEL FSP support coreboot-v4.0-4966
mr.nuke.me at gmail.com
Sun Dec 8 02:58:56 CET 2013
On 12/07/2013 06:05 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Some things have to be binary blobs. Because the world will apparently
> end if we tell someone how to initialise a memory controller.
> But the *infrastructure* that ties those binary blobs together, that
> knows how to invoke the individual PEI modules, doesn't have to be
> binary too.
> That part could reasonably be done in source code (hell, most of it
> already exists in EDKII), and could give FSP users a lot more
> flexibility and debugability.
> It would also help to combat the trend of including stuff in the FSP
> that *doesn't* belong there because we *can* have open code that does it
> (such as graphics setup).
Your rant is most inappropriate in this thread. An Intel engineer wants
to help us with FSP. Instead of trying to sort things out, you just
rant. Why is it so difficult to agree to saying "May we please have the
Zoran, may we please have the source code under a GPLv2 compatible
license? I think this would be the best way forward for integrating FSP
More information about the coreboot