Hi Marvin I'm also starting my studies on FSP, but I think I can help with at least one of the questions. About the two Sec cores.
The existence of two sec cores represents what is called "FSP Normal Boot" There is the main sec core, and another sec core that is placed inside the FspInitPei. They communicate to each other so the needed information is passed correctly. Each sec core has it's responsibilities, so they don't do the same thing. Hope this can help you to find more information. Thanks and Regards Rafael R. Machado Em qua, 6 de jul de 2016 às 20:40, Marvin H?user <marvin.haeu...@outlook.com> escreveu: > Dear EDK2 community members, > > Recently, I have gained interest in the Intel FSP and have been reading > the Intel documents regarding its design and integration with EDK2. > In the white paper 'A Tour Beyond BIOS Using the Intel(r) Firmware Support > Package with the EFI Developer Kit II', the chapter 'FSP Wrapper Boot Flow' > mentions different ways of how SecCore and following can interact with FSP. > This, in my opinion, implies that SecCore is present in source-form (likely > IntelFspWrapperPkg/FspWrapperSecCore), while the actual silicon > initialization is of course within the FSP binary. This is how I understood > it and thought it made sense. > However, when I opened a few of the FSP Firmware Volume files, I > discovered that it did not only have the FSP header and initialization > PEIMs/drivers, but also SecCore, PeiCore and FspDxeIpl embedded. For what > reason are these generic modules embedded? Until discovering them within > the image, I had assumed these would be provided by the consumer package. > To better understand the creation and consumption of Intel FSP, I have > looked at Quark and Braswell Reference Codes provided within the > edk2-platforms tree. BraswellPlatformPkg, which consumes BSWFSP.fd that has > SecCore embedded, also consumes FspWrapperSecCore (seen here: > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/pentium-celeron-n-udk2015/BraswellPlatformPkg/PlatformPkg.fdf#L387) > from the source tree. If I am not mistaken, building it would end up having > SecCore duplicated - once as part of the FSP volume (binary) and once > within the FVRECOVERY volume (source). As SecCore includes the Reset > Vector, wouldn't one of the two be obsolete as it would never be invoked? > The same applies to PeiCore and a few other generic modules which are part > oft he chain. > > Furthermore, a couple of modules that have 'Dxe' in their name are > declared as PEI module in their FFS header, for example 'PchInitDxeFsp'. I > have observed this in all FSP version I have looked at, including Braswell, > Broadwell and Ivy Bridge. Is there any special reason for that? Is it > because the FSP initialization code is what has them loaded and called, so > it doesn't matter? > > Please forgive me for my ignorance and thank you in advance for your time! > > Best regards, > Marvin. > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel > _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
