On 24.06.19 17:17, ron minnich wrote:
We're reviewing the STM code, of course. If you're going to worry about something, worry about FSP 2.0 still being closed source. FSP is not optional and we have no idea of all the things it does/can do.
You are saying this as if it would be magically better if it were open source. It's not legible code at all. Without a rewrite of its cherries, we would still have no idea about it. Its integration into coreboot is open source, btw. And even supposed to be reviewed. But it looks like hell. Parts of it never made any sense and most of the rest is copy- paste degraded. So much for reviewed code. I bet the integration of FSP-S has already outgrown the amount of code of an FSP-S rewrite. Oh, and I'm rather sure FSP is optional. If it weren't, selling coreboot products with it would seem like a GPL violation, at least to me.
Finally, boot coding is a pretty difficult task. You don't see how hard it is on x86 any more because x86 now depends on binary blobs to work (I'm still very sad about that) and the really hard parts are in the blobs. But it is intricate, difficult code, even on simple ARM SOCs. That has not changed.
Well, I experience this very differently. Reviews aside, I spent most of my time with bug fixing. And most of the bugs I encounter are either due to unnecessary software complexity or because somebody ignored the little documentation that exists. Those aren't boot-coding problems. Nico _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
