Re: [coreboot] FSP 2.0 headers in coreboot

2018-05-09 Thread Julius Werner
> Yes, I agree and already did so when writing the above. That's why I > made it a recommendation and not a requirement. I also intentionally > didn't write "vendor". Just whoever provides the blob should sign it. I still don't really get what signing in general is solving here. Digital

Re: [coreboot] FSP 2.0 headers in coreboot

2018-05-09 Thread Youness Alaoui
Sorry for being late to answer to my own thread (busy busy busy). A few notes : The initial check-in of the kabylake FSP was uploaded with a BSD license : https://github.com/IntelFsp/FSP/tree/d88078a708e768c7b6ee5cbc996299d303c3c702/KabylakeFspBinPkg Later commits added Intel's Restricted Use

Re: [coreboot] FSP 2.0 headers in coreboot

2018-05-09 Thread Nico Huber
On 09.05.2018 01:04, Nico Huber wrote: > Unless a pointer as described above exists for a given plat- > form that relies on a blob, all changes* to that platform > *shall* be refused. >> >> I think this is counter-productive, as is removing any old boards that >> don't