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

[Nico Huber]

On 09.05.2017 17:19, Aaron Durbin via coreboot 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.

Hmmm, if we touch the interface of the FSP driver, any downstream board
port that wants to keep track of upstream would have to be updated any-
way. Would be nice to know what these customers expect, and when and why
they synchronize with upstream.

> 
>>
>> Btw. does anybody feel like a maintainer for soc/intel/skylake/?
> 
> Personally feel? Or want?

You mean if I'm interested? No, not atm. Would also depend on what this
discussion will lead to. I was actually asking more if I missed to CC
somebody.

Nico

> 
>>
>> 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/
>>
>