Re: [coreboot] Will we maintain Skylake/FSP1.1?

2017-05-09 Thread Zoran Stojsavljevic
0.eu>; Nico Huber <nico.hu...@secunet.com>; > Leahy, Leroy P <leroy.p.le...@intel.com>; Duncan Laurie < > dlau...@chromium.org>; coreboot@coreboot.org > Subject: Re: [coreboot] Will we maintain Skylake/FSP1.1? > > On 09.05.2017 18:47, Youness Alaoui wrote: > > I t

Re: [coreboot] Will we maintain Skylake/FSP1.1?

2017-05-09 Thread Leahy, Leroy P
kar...@kakaroto.homelinux.net>; Aaron Durbin <adur...@google.com> Cc: Alexander Couzens <lyn...@fe80.eu>; Nico Huber <nico.hu...@secunet.com>; Leahy, Leroy P <leroy.p.le...@intel.com>; Duncan Laurie <dlau...@chromium.org>; coreboot@coreboot.org Subject: Re: [coreb

Re: [coreboot] Will we maintain Skylake/FSP1.1?

2017-05-09 Thread Nico Huber
On 09.05.2017 18:47, Youness Alaoui wrote: > I thought FSP 1.1 was for skylake and FSP 2.0 for Kabylake, I didn't > realize 2.0 would be compatible with skylake too. Does this mean a skylake > port could use fsp 1.1 or 2.0 ? In that case, is the 2.0 version better > maintained, more stable, easier

Re: [coreboot] Will we maintain Skylake/FSP1.1?

2017-05-09 Thread Nico Huber
On 09.05.2017 17:19, Aaron Durbin via coreboot wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Nico Huber wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was walking through the Skylake FSP1.1 support in coreboot and asked >> myself if it is worth to clean it up and maintain the code? given that >> the

Re: [coreboot] Will we maintain Skylake/FSP1.1?

2017-05-09 Thread Aaron Durbin via coreboot
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Nico Huber wrote: > Hi, > > I was walking through the Skylake FSP1.1 support in coreboot and asked > myself if it is worth to clean it up and maintain the code? given that > the upcoming release of Kabylake FSP should be able to supersede

[coreboot] Will we maintain Skylake/FSP1.1?

2017-05-09 Thread Nico Huber
Hi, I was walking through the Skylake FSP1.1 support in coreboot and asked myself if it is worth to clean it up and maintain the code? given that the upcoming release of Kabylake FSP should be able to supersede it (I presume it is?). Are there any plans yet to drop it once the next FSP is

Re: [coreboot] Will we maintain Skylake/FSP1.1?

2017-05-09 Thread Youness Alaoui
I thought FSP 1.1 was for skylake and FSP 2.0 for Kabylake, I didn't realize 2.0 would be compatible with skylake too. Does this mean a skylake port could use fsp 1.1 or 2.0 ? In that case, is the 2.0 version better maintained, more stable, easier to integrate, etc.. or are both 1.1 and 2.0