Hi Bin, On 20 December 2015 at 19:27, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> On 11 December 2015 at 03:55, Bin Meng <bmeng...@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...@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 <s...@chromium.org> >> Tested on link (ivybridge non-FSP) >> Tested-by: Simon Glass <s...@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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
