[coreboot] Intel FSP on Bayley Bay CRB: No output

Giri girim77 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 22 01:37:22 CEST 2014

Regarding below two items

1) The microcode that is being included is not a part of coreboot, so it
needs to be disabled for the default build so that abuild doesn't fail.  
Intel wants to release the microcode as part of the FSP package and not
include it in the coreboot repo so that the microcode vs FSP versions can be
matched up.

Microcode is not part of FSP but just consumes the pointer and length.
Microcode and FSP versions doesn't need to match but the microcode needs to
match the CPU on that platform. 

2) The microcode that's included for the intel FSP is for B2/B3 silicon, but
it seems like many users are still using B0 silicon, which requires a
different microcode patch.  This shouldn't be a problem but since there are
4 SKUs of Bay Trail and using the microcode for the wrong SKU will *APPEAR*
to work, but cause issues later, the microcode can cause massive amounts of

Please check if the microcode is loaded by reading MSR 0x8B


-----Original Message-----
From: coreboot [mailto:coreboot-bounces at coreboot.org] On Behalf Of Peter
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 2:57 AM
To: coreboot at coreboot.org
Subject: Re: [coreboot] Intel FSP on Bayley Bay CRB: No output

Martin Roth wrote:
> Eh, it's code...  It's going to have issues and bugs.

I disagree with that attitude. A platform vendor writing platform init code
doesn't really have a valid excuse for producing buggy code.

"Release early, release often" can't be an excuse to push the consequences
of one's own shortcomings onto others. That's just poor programmer's moral.

I obviously disagree with letting shortcomings in other code generate issues
in coreboot.

> We're all interested in getting these things to the highest quality,

It doesn't seem to me that Intel is interested in that at all.

They're making themselves the only actor in the world capable of producing
correct platform init code for their platforms, yet they don't. My guess as
to why is that time to market is quite short.

> They're still actively developing the code and working to improve 
> things, so in that way it's definitely better than getting a single 
> source code drop that never gets updated again.

That's a joke, right?

Source code without updates is clearly better than no source code.

Maybe I'm getting too old to waste my life on closed source nonsense?


coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org

More information about the coreboot mailing list