Hi Simon,
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 20 December 2015 at 19:27, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
On 11 December 2015 at 03:55, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@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@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@chromium.org Tested on link (ivybridge non-FSP) Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@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.
The file was not written by Intel. Current U-Boot implementation is our own. I will change the license in v2.
Regards, Bin