[coreboot] patch: add mcp55 pcie device
rminnich at gmail.com
Mon Aug 11 18:29:34 CEST 2008
Committed revision 743.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> How about multi-level dts instead of the current two-level model? An
> intermediate level could aggregate device-level dts. The mainboard dts
> would include intermediate-level dts unless low-level stuff was needed.
Horrors. Let's not go there right now. This has already been the
subject of multi-month discussions. Keep it simple and regular.
>> Note that it *is* clearer from the point of view of seeing exactly what
>> is being built in in one place: the dts. In v2, the magic of linker scripts
>> added considerable confusion, and we got complaints about that, so
>> we are trying to avoid such magic in v3.
> Point taken.
Let's never forget: we need to think about it from the point of view
of non-coreboot-experts, i.e. people who are using the tool, and might
have to change it, but don't wnat to make a living at it.
That should be our target: people who don't do this for a living and
don't want to -- they just want a quick build and an easy set of
changes. One issue that came up on OLPC was that a number of people
found v2 hard to figure out, and they did not have time to plumb its
depths. I don't blame them one bit.
I think u-boot does a great job that way. You can walk into that code
and find your way around. It's not nearly as capable as v2 but i can
tell you -- there are some big PPC machines running u-boot, not
coreboot, and the choice was made by people who looked at both
I think v2 veered off the path to some degree, in recent years, as
more and more complexity was added in via cpp tricks, linker sets and
complex code paths. In some sense, I have been trying to reduce
trickiness and increase transparency with v3. I hope it works out.
I have taken a lot of inspiration from how Plan 9 kernel build process
works and plan 9 init and setup works; it's far simpler than (e.g.)
> Could you dig up the revision? I'd like to take a look. Thanks.
I don't think I can :-) I did that in the very early going at FOSDEM
2007 and we killed it about a year later IIRC. It was documented in
early versions of the newboot.lyx document.
> With the comments below addressed:
renamed per your suggestions.
More information about the coreboot