[coreboot] Will we maintain Skylake/FSP1.1?

Youness Alaoui kakaroto at kakaroto.homelinux.net
Tue May 9 18:47:20 CEST 2017


I thought FSP 1.1 was for skylake and FSP 2.0 for Kabylake, I didn't
realize 2.0 would be compatible with skylake too. Does this mean a skylake
port could use fsp 1.1 or 2.0 ? In that case, is the 2.0 version better
maintained, more stable, easier to integrate, etc.. or are both 1.1 and 2.0
implementations equivalent at this point?
I also don't see the 2.0 release in https://github.com/IntelFsp/FSP/ so I
assume getting my hands on it would mean grabbing it from somewhere else....

Thanks,
Youness.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Aaron Durbin <adurbin at google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Nico Huber <nico.huber at secunet.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was walking through the Skylake FSP1.1 support in coreboot and asked
> > myself if it is worth to clean it up and maintain the code? given that
> > the upcoming release of Kabylake FSP should be able to supersede it (I
> > presume it is?). Are there any plans yet to drop it once the next FSP
> > is released? (when will that be anyway?)
>
> I wanted to get rid of it, but Intel claimed they had customers using it
> still.
>
> >
> > Btw. does anybody feel like a maintainer for soc/intel/skylake/?
>
> Personally feel? Or want?
>
> >
> > In it's current state it's very hard to use from a mainboard porter's
> > point of view. Many of the selectable Kconfig settings are useless
> > (either don't compile or don't run) for FSP1.1, and there's a `struct
> > pei_data` [1] that seems to be a remnant of compatibility for a dif-
> > ferent blob ;)
>
> That's just an old remnant of passing data around. It could be removed
> as you annotated isolating those pieces to different structs and/or
> variables for passing data around. The name is obviously not
> applicable w.r.t. its current use.
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Nico
> >
> > PS. Microcode updates are also missing in the upstream blobs repo. Is
> >     that a licensing problem? If I try to download them from Intel, it
> >     asks me to click to accept that I'll prevent further distribution.
> >     I could prepare a patch to add them but somebody else would have
> >     to sign it off.
> >
> > [1] https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/19638/
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20170509/182b37a2/attachment.html>


More information about the coreboot mailing list