[coreboot] BayTrail PCIe problems (hangup) in FSP (in U-Boot)

Zoran Stojsavljevic zoran.stojsavljevic at gmail.com
Fri Nov 3 13:54:06 CET 2017

Hello Wolfgang,

Let me make it very productive... I know you will NOT like it (but I do NOT
care, after what you did answer to me)!

Your guy Stefan is here, asking for a help. Stefan got the straight answer:
FSP/Coreboot (intermingled), then U_Boot as payload... You got that?

What do you want else?

Tell me? It is simple and plain!

Anything else?

Thank you,

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:

> Hallo Zoran,
> In message <CAGAf8LzBUfqdWN74Kh3SGdSOPiLa4GUKT+Gr-kEN_A9NQShnZQ at mail.
> gmail.com> you wrote:
> >
> > Let us involve in this discussion Mr Denk (father of U-Boot, I know Mr
> Denk
> > personally)), and Mr Glass (option [B] here mentioned below)... For the
> > (targeted by me) purposes (History involved)!
> You drop me here into some thread, and even though you write
> "History involved", your quoting style does not really make clear
> who i writing what in response to which statements by whom :-(
> Read: I don't know what you want.
> > > peter at stuge.se writes:
> > > I think you are actively hurting the overall ecosystem by working on a
> > different
> > > project (FSP in U-Boot) which overlaps with Coreboot efforts.
> >
> > Peter (Stuge),
> >
> > This is VERY correct statement... You already mentioned: It is NOT INTEL
> > FSP, per say?
> I don't understand either of this.  Multiple implementations of the
> same feature / multiple solutions for the same problem have never
> been a bad thing per se.  On contrary, in masy cases they have been
> an essential requisite to enable technical progress.  Of course, it
> is always possible to step on someone's toes, but I am not sure
> above statement is a result of this.
> So without deeper understanding I disagree with both statemen't -
> with Peter's, as different projects for the same thing are not
> necessarily bad, and with your's that this was true.
> > It is something I am fighting for years for/in the STRONG interests of
> > U-Boot/Open Source: to have consistent strategy with INTEL IOTG
> management
> > which they ignored/have dominant/aggressive strategy to walk over the
> Open
> > Source people, people at all (please, INTEL Legal, try to oppose me.. Be
> my
> > guests, make my day, I know U R watching)?!
> No Intel address is on Cc: - so who do you suspect to be reporting
> to Intel legal?
> > *> peter at stuge.se <peter at stuge.se> writes:*
> >
> > *> The only thing that makes sense is for U-Boot to focus on being a
> > payload that is started by coreboot (this has already been done) and for
> > your issues to be solved within the coreboot frame.*
> I can imagine a bunch of other scenarios which use vanilla U-Boot
> without coreboot at all.  I can see no technical reason why x86 must
> be different from all other architectures where U-Boot boots
> directly.
> > Peter (Stuge),
> >
> > Although I DO 100% agree with you what you did write (about U-Boot
> > politics) in your very first email about DENX Systems (surprising, isn't
> > it), with the *last statement* presented here do NOT agree at all!?
> >
> > This is a (mild per say denial) noise, my dear friend. "BS" (sorry)... To
> > start Coreboot FSP and then to have U-Boot payload as third stage boot
> > loader???
> >
> > GOOGLE would like to have this as concept, don't you agree (huge
> > controlling interests involved)?
> >
> > NOPE! NO GO. Please. Please?! ;-)
> >
> > Peter...
> Zoran - It is totally impossible here to tell who wrote wich part of
> this.  From your context, I would guess this was Peter, but from the
> working it looks more like yourself.
> Please do yourself and all of us the favour and use clean,
> unmistablable quoting, so it is definitely clear who wrote what.
> Otherwise you are just feeding sparks of a potential flame war by
> (mis-) attributing text.
> > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Alexander Couzens <lynxis at fe80.eu>
> wrote:
> > > Do you tried to use coreboot (w/o FSP) + u-boot instead? Or is this out
> > of scope?
> >
> > This is complete nonsense, and you all know it... Forced by INTEL to
> > protect their own interests, in very cruel/selfich way! NO GO! Please!
> I don't think this is the way to further a constructive discussion.
> > I did NOT want to offend anybody in this list (if anybody, after all,
> feels
> > offended), At The End of The Day, I do NOT care... But you all should
> think
> > what I really wrote here...
> So, you use a flame thrower, and then you don't care?  Such
> behaviour is usually called trolling...
> Thanks, but no.
> Wolfgang Denk
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
> "Once they go up, who cares where  they  come  down?  That's  not  my
> department."                                       - Werner von Braun
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20171103/7742aa68/attachment.html>

More information about the coreboot mailing list