[COMMIT] Infrastructure Updates 4
rminnich at lanl.gov
Thu Sep 4 09:57:00 CEST 2003
On 3 Sep 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I started digging through the code, but I am not completely there yet.
> > It seems to me it would make sense to move the register "up" information
> > from cpu k8 "cpu0" to the northbridge amd/amdk8 "mc0" definition since
> > its information associated with the used southbridges.
> The register "up" is something that has not been used at all yet. Personally
> I am not comfortable with the fact that we have both cpu and northbridge
> instances for the cpus..
yes, this is the eternal question. For the earlier version I put in
northsouthbridge as a type because of stuff like the sis 630. Now, I
always wondered if we should not have just kept southbridge/sis/630 and
northbridge/sis/630, but acknowledging that they were in fact one chip
seemed the way to go.
For the k8, we have a cpu and a northbridge. We could have a part called
cpunorthbridge (ACK) but where does this end? It seems ugly. Is it better
to just have a northbridge.c in the cpu/k8 directory and remove
> > There is currently no information on how the amd8131 and 8151 are
> > actually linked.
> Yes there is, but it is mostly implicit.
The issue is that we designed the config file hierarchy as parent/child.
That is not enough of a topology description to allow the more complex
topologies possible on the K8 systems. Thus you have to extend the
topology with the per-chip "register" declarations.
Since every other system we have can be satisfied with the parent/child
relationship, I think we ought to leave this be.
More information about the coreboot