[coreboot] FSP 2.0 headers in coreboot

[Nico Huber]

On 11.05.2018 01:39, Timothy Pearson wrote:
> Not to jump too far into the fray, but couldn't this be handled by
> simply not blocking coreboot development on proprietary blobs?  For
> instance, if someone wants to implement a feature that requires
> repository-wide changes (e.g. the timestamp stuff that went in a couple
> of years back) that happens to break only some blobby boards, that the
> feature should be implemented anyway and the broken blobby boards added
> back in as the vendor has time / inclination to fix?

If we maintain the code for end users and not for vendors, vendors won't
do anything. And the end users can't, I would call them developers
otherwise.

> 
> Basically, this seems to be what Linux already does for kernel work.
> The benefit of upstreaming open code is that other people will maintain
> it for you, but if you really need to publish a binary only driver
> (NVIDIA) then you have the full burden of maintenance on yourself as the
> vendor.  This encourages contribution back without putting an arbitrary
> administrative limit on what kind of blob level is acceptable.

The difference here is that Linux made it. It's not only accepted by
vendors but actively employed. I fear for coreboot, currently, it's
mostly the silicon vendor's customers that want (or maybe even only
accept) it. Plus coreboot is firmware, nobody is used to maintain firm-
ware.

IMHO, we should make coreboot most easy to port to the widest range of
boards possible. To extend the community. If that's only feasible
through blobs (atm?), I can take it. But if a blob only helps that
one company who built it, I don't see much value in it.

Nico