[coreboot] [PATCH] Kill unused ROMCC dependencies

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Fri Apr 3 18:46:28 CEST 2009


On 03.04.2009 18:24, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> On 03.04.2009 18:17 Uhr, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>   
>> On 03.04.2009 14:39, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> On 03.04.2009 03:59, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> There are more than a dozen targets in the v2 tree which refer to ROMCC
>>>> in their Config.lb but never use it. There's no point in keeping dead
>>>> code around. Kill it.
>>>>
>>>> This patch removes ROMCC remainders from Config.lb for tyan/s2735 and
>>>> tyan/s2850.
>>>>
>>>> Abuild build log with and without the patch is completely identical.
>>>>
>>>> If this patch is OK, I'll create more of the same type, hopefully making
>>>> ROMCC dependencies a bit more clear for v2.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
>>>>   
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> Next step. Kill auto.c and failover.c and clean up Config.lb for
>>> tyan/s2735
>>> tyan/s2850
>>> tyan/s2875
>>> tyan/s2880
>>> tyan/s2881
>>> tyan/s2882
>>> tyan/s2885
>>> tyan/s2891
>>> tyan/s2892
>>> tyan/s2895
>>>
>>> Abuild log is completely identical with and without the patch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> You know the drill...
>>
>> arima/hdama
>> ibm/e325
>> ibm/e326
>> iwill/dk8s2
>> iwill/dk8x
>> msi/ms9282
>> newisys/khepri
>> sunw/ultra40
>> tyan/s2891
>> tyan/s2892
>> tyan/s2895
>> tyan/s4880
>> tyan/s4882
>>
>> Abuild log is completely identical with and without the patch.
>>
>> With this patch, the last ROMCC remainders for K8 boards are gone.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
>>
>> Patrick, this time I want to commit the patch :-P
>>   
>>     
>
> Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan at coresystems.de>
>   

Thanks, committed in r4055.


> I guess now we can start renaming those files called
> "cache_as_ram_auto.c" (and possibly even amd64_main on non-amd systems)
>   

Looks like a good idea, but right now I'd prefer to have an easy way to
differentiate between CAR and ROMCC targets. And it looks like the
filename does that nicely (with 4 exceptions, though).

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

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





More information about the coreboot mailing list