[coreboot] [PATCH] Geode GX2 auto DRAM detect patch
uwe at hermann-uwe.de
Fri Oct 15 18:59:53 CEST 2010
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 04:10:26PM +0200, Nils wrote:
> As i stated in the original message i tested the patch on my Geode GX2 Wyse
> S50 board.
> I didn`t test it on the Rumba and Frontrunner because i don`t have them and
> people who have them don`t seem to have time/interest to test.
> But i don`t think that is very imported because both boards are broken in the
> current state for years.
I agree. Testing on one of the GX2 boards is fully sufficient, nobody
can always test _all_ boards of a given chipset.
We're also routinely doing massive changes on the tree, some without
much hardware-testing at all, so your patch -- being boot-tested on
hardware -- is already in much better shape than many others we already
> I don`t think the Frontrunner board works at the present state either.
> I think i found a double bug in the cpureginit.c code that exists since the
> first commit in r2248 ! (The FooGlue setup should only be done for CS5535
> boards and uses a wrong address)
> I am working on a patch for that.
> I think the GX2 code was never realy finished on any target and was/is a mess.
> Because exept for my Wyse S50 i don`t think there is a working board.
> (there is not even a free available working VSA blob for the current GX2 tree,
> i had to make it myself!)
Can you update any wiki instructions wrt to VSA which may be out of
date, and or shall we upload a known-good blob to the wiki?
> So i think my patches are a big improvement and it is hard to "break" someones
> board with it.
Yes, I fully agree.
> I am not planning to do a lot of little patches and abuild and boot test all
> of them separately as that cost me a lot of extra time.
> As i understand it only a few, for the real user unimportant, white space and
> comment change patches would get acked and committed and no one dares to ack
> the real patches.
Nah, we will review and commit this stuff, don't worry. But I agree with
Myles that mega-patches containing both whitespace changes and random
other functional changes are hard to review. Let us know if you can
split the stuff into, say, 2-3 distinct patches, one with whitespace
and coding style changes and 1-2 with the actual code changes.
If not, I'll try to separate at least parts of the whitespace stuff and
commit it, so the rest becomes more readable. Then we'll review that
> Maybe Ron is right and all of the non functional boards (i think at least 90
> percent of coreboot) should be deleted.
No, definately not. I whole-heartedly disagree with any notions of
"let's drop this board, it wasn't tested recently" and I will object to
any patches in that direction.
Sorry it took so long to review your changes, but don't be discouraged,
we will definately merge your changes. Please let us know if you're going
to post updated/splitted patches or whether we should try to split
http://hermann-uwe.de | http://sigrok.org
http://randomprojects.org | http://unmaintained-free-software.org
More information about the coreboot