[coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom: List supported/nonsupported boards

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Sun May 17 01:30:14 CEST 2009


On 17.05.2009 01:23, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> List all boards which are:
>
>  - Supported out of the box (no flash enables required)
>
>  - Verifiably not yet working (unknown flash enable)
>
> Also, move some structs to flash.h in preparation for later wiki
> output support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann <uwe at hermann-uwe.de>
>   

Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>

but please see the comment below.

> Index: flash.h
> ===================================================================
> --- flash.h	(Revision 522)
> +++ flash.h	(Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -168,6 +168,71 @@
> +/**
> + * We use 2 sets of IDs here, you're free to choose which is which. This
> + * is to provide a very high degree of certainty when matching a board on
> + * the basis of subsystem/card IDs. As not every vendor handles
> + * subsystem/card IDs in a sane manner.
> + *
> + * Keep the second set NULLed if it should be ignored. Keep the subsystem IDs
> + * NULLed if they don't identify the board fully. But please take care to
> + * provide an as complete set of pci ids as possible; autodetection is the
> + * preferred behaviour and we would like to make sure that matches are unique.
> + *
> + * The coreboot ids are used two fold. When running with a coreboot firmware,
> + * the ids uniquely matches the coreboot board identification string. When a
> + * legacy bios is installed and when autodetection is not possible, these ids
> + * can be used to identify the board through the -m command line argument.
> + *
> + * When a board is identified through its coreboot ids (in both cases), the
> + * main pci ids are still required to match, as a safeguard.
> + */
>   

Can you move the comment above back to the old location (i.e. leave it
unchanged)? It serves as a guideline for what to stuff in
board_pciid_enables[] and should be near board_pciid_enables[] to help
implementers. (Admittedly, having that comment before the struct
definition was less than optimal.)

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

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





More information about the coreboot mailing list