Hi Simon, On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > 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. >
The file was not written by Intel. Current U-Boot implementation is our own. I will change the license in v2. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
