[coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

[David Hendricks]

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Ivan Ivanov <qmastery16 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think, by "The Right Direction" he meant having the open source code
> instead of FSP-S blobs.
> 'Why do we have FSP-S' - I have the same question. Why this code must
> be kept closed, Intel?
> Open source is always better than closed, and your major competitor -
> AMD - would not be able
> to use your source code - not just because of the licenses, but
> because your CPUs are so different

Bruce Griffith's e-mail about AMD's binary PI provides some great
insights into these issues:
https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2014-November/078892.html

IMO the lesson is that processes for open sourcing firmware are very
costly and time-consuming. If we want open source firmware to be
considered from the start of a product development cycle, we need to
demonstrate that coreboot will add value and that the development
processes will not be too costly or burdensome.

It took Linux many years to become such a valuable part of the
ecosystem that vendors hire kernel developers to write open source
drivers. Coreboot is slowly getting to that point, and Chromebooks are
setting a good example for how to do it. Ranting and making unfeasible
demands does not help. Working with vendors to toward a more open
future and proving our worth by shipping real products does.