[coreboot] domain vs device statictree order

Marc Jones marcj303 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 7 00:13:06 CET 2009

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:
> Marc,
> Hopefully this makes everything right again.  I still think some of
> the geode functions should be moved, but that's really a separate
> issue.
>> You have to specify to make things breadth first, which seems like the
>> correct way.
> I guess it's not really breadth first.  It's just parents before siblings.
> I think this should be done for all the phases unless there's some
> compelling reason not to.
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com>

I agree it is parents before siblings but I thought it looked more
like a problem with the statictree. I must not understand .next.

from http://pastebin.ca/1301081

dev_apic_0 has a .sibling = &dev_domain_0 and .next = &dev_domain_0_pci_1_0

Then later in the last device domain dev_domain_0_pci_f_2 has a .next
= &dev_domain_0.

I would expect .sibling and .next to point to the &dev_domain_0 and
then dev_domain_0 to have .next = &dev_domain_0_pci_1_0

dev_cpus looks like I would expect .sibling = &dev_apic_0 and .next =
dev_domain_0_pci_f_0 also has the same .sibling and .next.

Can you explain the last pci dev .next pointing back to the domain?

I am not setup to test this either. I was talking with Mart on NAND
device problems. Maybe he can test it tomorrow.


More information about the coreboot mailing list