Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/04/2018 01:08 PM, Zaolin wrote: > You forgot Cavium Thunder X SoC support, Stefan ;) > > Finally coreboot supports it and there are no blobs > > on this platform. It's not exactly what I'd call modern desktop or server class, though :-)

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

You forgot Cavium Thunder X SoC support, Stefan ;) Finally coreboot supports it and there are no blobs on this platform. On 04.05.2018 20:01, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * Timothy Pearson [180501 04:58]: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >>

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

Hi Kyösti, That's a great post-mortem, thanks for writing it up! I didn't mean to imply that binary PI is a great example of how to do things, I just think Bruce's explanation is useful for answering Ivan's question of why companies don't simply open their code. As you point out binary blobs

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

* Timothy Pearson [180501 04:58]: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > All the ARM64 boards I've seen that are desktop or higher class ship > with AMI UEFI and AMI BMC. Plus they contain their own magic blobs, > some akin to the ME. ARM64 is

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

Hi David, I tried to stay away from commenting, but now that you pulled this red binaryPI card from your pocket :) On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:49 PM, David Hendricks wrote: > > Bruce Griffith's e-mail about AMD's binary PI provides some great > insights into these

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Ivan Ivanov wrote: > I think, by "The Right Direction" he meant having the open source code > instead of FSP-S blobs. > 'Why do we have FSP-S' - I have the same question. Why this code must > be kept closed, Intel? > Open source is always

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

I think, by "The Right Direction" he meant having the open source code instead of FSP-S blobs. 'Why do we have FSP-S' - I have the same question. Why this code must be kept closed, Intel? Open source is always better than closed, and your major competitor - AMD - would not be able to use your

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

Hello Zoran, Zoran Stojsavljevic: >> Our recommendation for some time has been a mix -- arm64 client devices >> (laptops, tablets, etc.) and ppc64el servers. With those two, you can >> replace x86 entirely if you don't have proprietary software in your >> environment. > > With all due respect,

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/01/2018 02:46 PM, Zoran Stojsavljevic wrote: >> Our recommendation for some time has been a mix -- arm64 client devices >> (laptops, tablets, etc.) and ppc64el servers. With those two, you can >> replace x86 entirely if you don't have

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

> Our recommendation for some time has been a mix -- arm64 client devices > (laptops, tablets, etc.) and ppc64el servers. With those two, you can > replace x86 entirely if you don't have proprietary software in your > environment. With all due respect, this is the discussion about Coreboot going

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/01/2018 01:30 PM, Julius Werner wrote: >> All the ARM64 boards I've seen that are desktop or higher class ship >> with AMI UEFI and AMI BMC. Plus they contain their own magic blobs, >> some akin to the ME. ARM64 is not a panacea either;

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

> All the ARM64 boards I've seen that are desktop or higher class ship > with AMI UEFI and AMI BMC. Plus they contain their own magic blobs, > some akin to the ME. ARM64 is not a panacea either; OpenPOWER's > actually shipping open POWER9 systems right now with source code. Why > not go down

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:46 PM, taii...@gmx.com wrote: > Like I have said I believe the gradual encroachment of blobs and corporate > control will end up leaving coreboot dead in the water and eventually even Can you articulate what 'corporate control' is impacting coreboot?

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

Like I have said I believe the gradual encroachment of blobs and corporate control will end up leaving coreboot dead in the water and eventually even code not related to platform initiation will be blobbed, coreboot will be an open source project only in theory not in reality - the only boards

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

*Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2018 9:58:33 AM >> *To:* Nico Huber >> *Cc:* Nathaniel L Desimone; Furquan Shaikh; Vincent Palatin; >> coreboot@coreboot.org <mailto:coreboot@coreboot.org>; Aaron Durbin; >> Stefan Reinauer; Martin Roth; ron minnich; Shelley

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

8 9:58:33 AM > *To:* Nico Huber > *Cc:* Nathaniel L Desimone; Furquan Shaikh; Vincent Palatin; > coreboot@coreboot.org; Aaron Durbin; Stefan Reinauer; Martin Roth; ron > minnich; Shelley Chen; Julius Werner; Vadim Bendebury; Nick Vaccaro; Chris > Ching; Duncan Laurie; Subrata Banik > *S

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

ikh; Vincent Palatin; coreboot@coreboot.org; Aaron Durbin; Stefan Reinauer; Martin Roth; ron minnich; Shelley Chen; Julius Werner; Vadim Bendebury; Nick Vaccaro; Chris Ching; Duncan Laurie; Subrata Banik Subject: Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S Nico, Aaron, You are just, with this despera

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

Nico, Aaron, You are just, with this desperate chit-chat, fueling INTEL's big EGO. Please, continue to do so! INTEL, at the end of the day, will thank you for that! :-)) Zoran ___ On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Nico Huber wrote: > Hello Aaron, > > thanks for your reply. >

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

Hello Aaron, thanks for your reply. On 30.04.2018 05:22, Aaron Durbin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Nico Huber wrote: >> Hello coreboot folks, hello Intel and Google coreboot developers, >> >> back on Tuesday, some of us discovered a commit on gerrit [1] that >>

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Nico Huber wrote: > Hello coreboot folks, hello Intel and Google coreboot developers, > > back on Tuesday, some of us discovered a commit on gerrit [1] that > implements (another) foreign interface inside coreboot. Discussing It's more of a bridge

Re: [coreboot] Why do we have FSP-S

Nico (Huber), > So it's time for an FSP3.0 that was designed with the community, I'd say. You talk (in this email, at least) too much. :-)) I wish you a Good Luck. You'll need it (all the luck in this and others' Worlds). And much more than that! Even Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek Next