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
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
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
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
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
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
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
7 matches
Mail list logo