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

[Nico Huber]

On 09.05.2017 18:47, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> 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?

Yes, the Kaby Lake release should be compatible with Skylake too. I'd
expect the resulting coreboot to be feature equivalent. The Kconfig
option MAINBOARD_USES_FSP2_0 is not tied to SOC_INTEL_KABYLAKE and
there is one board (intel/kunimitsu) that implements both interfaces.

Generally, the FSP 2.0 hook-up looks to be in a better shape, though.

> 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....

It's not released yet and I also struggle to find it. I had access to
pre-releases in the Intel Business Portal, but that is gone and I don't
know yet what to type into the search box on intel.com to find something
useful :-/ Would be great if anyone could give us a pointer.

Nico

> 
> 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/
>>>
>>
> 
> 
>