[coreboot] Resource Allocation discussion

Marc Jones marcj303 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 2 19:44:13 CET 2008

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Jones [mailto:marcj303 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:42 PM
>> To: Myles Watson
>> Cc: Coreboot
>> Subject: Re: [coreboot] Resource Allocation discussion
>> Hi Myles,
>> I will try to help..... :)
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The resource patches I submitted work fairly well, but still need a
>> little
>> > help.
>> >
>> > I haven't touched subtractively decoded resources, and that's where the
>> > breakage is right now.
>> >
>> > Questions:
>> > - Who should have a resource that moves all other IO resources above
>> 0x400
>> > or 0x1000?
>> What do you mean? By definition the subtractive port takes all
>> unclaimed cycles. There should be a LPC or ISA bridge in the
>> southbridge that forwards cycles that the legacy southbridge devices
>> don't claim.
> Sorry.  I wasn't clear enough again.  What I meant was something more like:
> Since the resource allocation algorithm can't avoid resources that it
> doesn't know about, who decides if the subtractive area to avoid is
> 0x0-0x400, 0x0-0x1000, or some other range?  If I declare some device to
> hold these addresses so that no other resource ends up there, should it be
> subtractive?  I'm inclined to put it in the domain or in the SuperIO.

I think it belongs in the southbridge lpc/isa device which is in the
domain. It should be 0x0-0x1000.


More information about the coreboot mailing list