Hi, On 04.09.20 04:11, Matt DeVillier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 8:29 PM Desimone, Nathaniel L > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given that the newest coreboot releases have not supported the FSP 1.x >> specification for years now > > support for FSP 1.0 was dropped, but FSP 1.1 is still used by Braswell > and supported in coreboot master
one possible workaround for coreboot master would be to hook the FSP repository up a second time (to have two submodule pointers). But even if it's not hard to support, I wonder what is the benefit of a legacy branch? >> seems that the 1.x FSP binaries at https://github.com/intel/FSP have become >> increasingly limited in their usefulness. For this reason, I would like to >> move those older binaries off master branch and create a new “legacy” branch >> to store them. I'll be sure to mention the legacy branch in the readme.md >> file in master. Any concerns with this change? > > the biggest issue would be that even if coreboot did entirely drop > support for FSP 1.x in master, there would still be older > tags/branches from which boards using FSP 1.x could be built, and > moving those FSP binaries out of the master branch would break > building of those boards without changes to the older coreboot > branches to handle that, which would become quite tricky if one then > needs to support pulling FSP from multiple branches I would expect the opposite. At least for all coreboot revisions that use a Git submodule. Those point to commits, not branches, and hence should always work as long as the branch history is kept in tact upstream. Nico _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
