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

[Simon Glass]

Hi Bin,

On 20 December 2015 at 19:27, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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+?

Hmm - is it using this license because it was written by Intel, or
because you modified it from the FSP code that was written by Intel?
If so, then I suppose it is reasonable to use the Intel license.

Regards,
Simon