[U-Boot] [PATCH 02/10] x86: ivybridge: Add FSP support

[Bin Meng]

Hi Simon,

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> On 11 December 2015 at 03:55, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> IvyBridge FSP package is built with a base address at 0xfff80000,
>> and does not use UPD data region. This adds basic FSP support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/Kconfig                     |  8 ++++
>>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/Makefile                    |  4 ++
>>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/fsp_configs.c               | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/ivybridge.c                 | 22 +++++++++++
>>  .../include/asm/arch-ivybridge/fsp/fsp_configs.h   | 40 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/arch-ivybridge/fsp/fsp_vpd.h  | 12 ++++++
>>  6 files changed, 131 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/fsp_configs.c
>>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/ivybridge.c
>>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/arch-ivybridge/fsp/fsp_configs.h
>>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/arch-ivybridge/fsp/fsp_vpd.h
>
> Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> Tested on link (ivybridge non-FSP)
> Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>
> One question: why do we need an Intel license on this code?
>

It was a copy and paste from other platform (queensbay and baytrail)
files. Do you think we should change it to GPLv2+?

Regards,
Bin