[coreboot] patch: dbe62

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 29.02.2008 14:41, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 06:53:39PM -0800, ron minnich wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>  > +     help
>>>  > +       This is the default mainboard name.
>>>
>>>  What's a default name?
>>>       
>> you'll have to ask the guy who wrote that Kconfig file. I'm just a
>> humble intern.
>>     
>
> :) Change the help text to something better then.
>   

"default name" is very misleading. Look at this snippet from the main 
Makefile:
MAINBOARDDIR=$(shell echo $(CONFIG_MAINBOARD_NAME))

Maybe change the text to "This is the path of the directory for this 
mainboard below mainboard/ ."
And once we have done that change, there is almost no reason not to 
rename that config variable to something else and/or use a better 
structure. I also believe this peculiarity is at fault for some of the 
weirdness I saw when rebuilding with a changed .config without make 
distclean in between.


>>>  > +void mainboard_pre_payload(void)
>>>  > +{
>>>  > +     geode_pre_payload();
>>>  > +     banner(BIOS_DEBUG, "mainboard_pre_payload: done");
>>>  > +}
>>>
>>>  Why do we need this mainboard code when it is only calling a
>>>  function that can be determined using the dts?
>>>       
>> Show me how. I don't know.
>>     
>
> arch/x86/stage1.c currently calls mainboard_pre_payload() - for
> Geode LX the call has nothing to do with the mainboard and
> everything to do with the north.
>
> geode_pre_payload() is defined in geodelx/geodelxinit.c, so one easy
> way is to rename it to northbridge_amd_geodelx_pre_payload() and
> generate the call from data in the dts.
>
> Another way would be to add it to struct device_operations. I like
> that better actually.
>   

Stage 2 phase 7?


>>>  > +unsigned long write_pirq_routing_table(unsigned long addr)
>>>
>>>  What an abomination. hint hint ;)
>>>
>>>  Can this code really not live in northbridge/ ?
>>>       
>> no, it's a south function, with mainboard-dependent bits. I'm happy
>> to see a way to make it generic, I just don't know how yet.
>>     
>
> Is the _code_ really mainboard dependent? I would think it's device
> dependent, and the board only changes input values. Am I off?
>   

Once you use stuff like ARRAY_SIZE, it is difficult to make the code 
generic.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/