[coreboot] v3 HT
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Tue Oct 28 00:56:16 CET 2008
On 28.10.2008 00:40, ron minnich wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
>> The explanations by Tom and Marc made a few things clear for me:
>> - The physical HT structure is not what we want to model.
>> - The appearance of HT and topology in PCI config space is what matters.
>> - 18.0 is not a PCI bridge, don't pretend it is one
>> With that in mind, I'd like to propose another dts.
>> I know that it has its own quirks, but it can serve as a discussion point.
> I'm beginning to feel like we're thinking too much.
We were trying to coax physical connections into the dts, but then we
had to ignore them in the code because the logical connections and their
placements were different.
> The fact is that whether or not the three HT links are a bridge, there
> is routing in there that makes each link logically the parent of a
> different set of devices. do we call that a bridge?
Do we ever walk the HT links explicitly in the code?
> I don't know what to do with bus at 1.
I fully agree. That's the weakest point of my dts. We can place all
those devices at bus 1, but for legacy reasons we may want to have them
at bus 0. Our choice.
> ah well it's been a long day, will look at this later. For now let's
> get myles patch in and try to see where that goes. I think I'm not
> ready for this dts. But if myles wants to try it that's fine too.
Sure, as long as the dts is not set in stone, I retract my NACK and
encourage Myles to commit.
More information about the coreboot