[coreboot] domain vs device statictree order

Mart Raudsepp mart.raudsepp at artecdesign.ee
Wed Jan 7 10:25:36 CET 2009

Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2009-01-06 kell 15:37, kirjutas Myles Watson:
> 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.

I don't think having different phases run in different order is a good
idea, as it can lead to unexpected code execution orders all over again.

Hopefully we can finalize this soon, so I can finalize my month long
on-and-off NAND flash battles :)

> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com>

Code-wise this looks good if all phases act the same way.
I'm not qualified right now to coment about the correctness of the
change for the order and how this affects existing mainboard code and
their code execution order expectations.

Mart Raudsepp

More information about the coreboot mailing list