[coreboot] FSP 2.0 headers in coreboot

[Nico Huber]

On 09.05.2018 01:04, Nico Huber wrote:
>>>>>      Unless a pointer as described above exists for a given plat-
>>>>>      form that relies on a blob, all changes* to that platform
>>>>>      *shall* be refused.
>>
>> I think this is counter-productive, as is removing any old boards that
>> don't comply. I am okay with creating new rules for future platforms, but
>> there is no reason to throw perfectly good and working boards out just
>> because they weren't written to comply with something we only just made up.
>> You wouldn't really be punishing anyone with that (vendors don't care about
>> outdated chips anyway), you'd just be taking choice away from our users.
> 
> Well, that's why I brought older Intel based CrOS devices up. I think
> they are the only ones that currently can't comply. I agree that we
> should have an exception for older platforms. But it's not really
> something "just made up", IMHO. Google made their own rules when
> bringing blobs in with Sandy Bridge, just to break them later. So the
> problem was obviously already visible when these platforms were added.

I need to clarify this. There were no written rules, AFAIR. What I meant
was that Google broke with a practice they established themselves. So
they should have noticed the conflict, IMHO.

I'll stop yelling about the past. Let's focus on some rules for the
future.

Nico