[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 22/22] x86: Add support for Intel Minnowboard Max

[Andrew Bradford]

Hi Simon,

On 05/28 10:30, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 27 May 2015 at 08:39, Andrew Bradford <andrew at bradfordembedded.com> wrote:
> > On 05/27 13:19, Bin Meng wrote:
> >> Hi Simon,

------------->8--------------

> >> I just noticed that Intel has released FSP specification v1.1 [1] in
> >> April. After a rough read of the 1.1 spec, it looks to me that Intel
> >> changed the fsp_init() design by breaking it down into 3 sub-routines:
> >> FspMemoryInit(), TempRamExit() and FspSiliconInit(). I feel this might
> >> be more logical to adapt U-Boot, but again I am not sure if the stack
> >> migration stuff is still there. So far I don't see any new FSP
> >> releases using the 1.1 spec.
> >>
> >> [1] https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/embedded/software/fsp/fsp-architecture-spec-v1-1.html
> >
> > There's also a very good overview of how to use an FSP v1.1 firmware at
> > [1].  It states that the problem in v1.0 for bootloaders was that when
> > you call FspInit() that temporary ram was torn down unconditionally.
> > Now, in v1.1, it says after calling FspMemoryInit() that control will be
> > given back to the bootloader running in the temporary ram (CAR?).  Then
> > the bootloader is responsible for migrating to main memory and to call
> > TempRamExit() so that temporary memory can be cleaned up.
> >
> > This sounds like what u-boot would want and what Simon described above,
> > for u-boot to be in charge of relocating from CAR to main memory, right?
> > If so, likely things will be much easier once there's a v1.1 FSP for
> > baytrail...
> >
> 
> Indeed, care to ping them to find out when this might happen?

It seems like there are no current plans to implement an FSP v1.1 compliant
firmware release for Bay Trail [1], which is unfortunate.

[1]:https://embedded.communities.intel.com/thread/8218

I will continue to pester my contacts at Intel.

Thanks,
Andrew