[coreboot] Further coreboot releases, setting new standards

[Jay Talbott]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Heymans [mailto:arthur at aheymans.xyz]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 6:26 AM
> To: Jay Talbott
> Cc: Patrick Georgi via coreboot; Patrick Georgi
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] Further coreboot releases, setting new standards
> 
> "Jay Talbott" <jaytalbott at sysproconsulting.com> writes:
> 
> > I know I don't post much here, but I feel like I need to chime in on
this
> thread... Perhaps it's time that SysPro becomes a louder voice in the
> community.
> >
> > Bay Trail and Broadwell DE are both still very popular platforms, yet
neither
> one of them meets the cut for any of the three criteria. So I caution
against
> removing the support for either of them too hastily.
> >
> 
> I looked into that FSP 1.0 integration code a little. It would seem to
> me that relocatable ramstage and C_ENVIRONMENT_BOOTBLOCK are
> possible.
> NO_CAR_GLOBAL_MIGRATION however seems rather impossible as the FSP
> has
> total control over the environment and destroys the CAR environment
> itself. Since I propose the standards I could offer some help to reach
> them.
> 
> It looks like FSP 1.0 will be dragging coreboot down for some time.
> Maybe we can agree not to integrate such monsters into coreboot in the
> future?

As far as I'm aware, Intel won't be developing anymore FSP 1.0 FSPs. It was
all part of a learning curve on everybody's part during the early days of
the FSP. At the same time, even for popular platforms, they won't be going
back and respinning old FSP 1.0 FSPs as FSP 2.0 FSPs. So as long as these
platforms are still popular, we will need to continue to support these
platforms for a while even though they don't nicely fit into the utopian
future of coreboot.

> BTW baytrail has a non FSP port that will likely be in better shape.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Arthur Heymans