[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 10/27] x86: Initial import from Intel FSP release for Queensbay platform

[Bin Meng]

Hi Simon,

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> On 12 December 2014 at 06:05, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is the initial import from Intel FSP release for Queensbay
>>> platform (Tunnel Creek processor and Topcliff Platform Controller
>>> Hub), which can be downloaded from Intel website.
>>>
>>> For more details, check http://www.intel.com/fsp.
>>>
>>> Note: U-Boot coding convention was applied to these codes, so it
>>> looks completely different from the original Intel release.
>>> Also update FSP support codes license header to use SPDX ID.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to report that now that you have moved it to U-Boot coding
>> conventions various other issues have been revealed. I would really
>> like to get this patch cleaned up at some point. If you'd like to do
>> it by respinning the next patch in the series, or by sending a new
>> patch I don't mind. But at the moment, it's not very nice code - I
>> wonder if it was originally an entry in an obfuscation competition :-)
>>
>> I know you have already done a lot to improve it, hopefully what I am
>> asking for will not take too long.
>>
>> I only got part way down the below code review. Maybe we can tidy it
>> up later. Let me know what you think.
>
> I think I can fix those issues in a follow-on patch. Will you apply
> this series for now?
>

These issues are fixed in the follow-on patch @
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/420827/, except the following:

- find_fsp_header() is not rewritten to remove those casts, because
only register variable can be used in a stackless environment
- 'status' parameter cannot removed in the fsp_continue() as there is
a check on the status
- params_ptr cannot be dropped in fsp_init() due to different ABI call
into the FSP
- init(&params) cannot be removed due to compiler optimization will
break this function

I've added some comments in the codes to explain. Please have a look.

Regards,
Bin