[coreboot] [PATCH] Drop all pre-CBFS rom_address entries in Config.lb/devicetree.cb

Myles Watson mylesgw at gmail.com
Thu Nov 5 19:22:09 CET 2009


On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Stefan Reinauer <stepan at coresystems.de>wrote:

> Myles Watson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com
> > <mailto:mylesgw at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Hermann <uwe at hermann-uwe.de
> >     <mailto:uwe at hermann-uwe.de>> wrote:
> >
> >         See patch.
> >
> >     I think it would be nice to figure out what we do with the
> >     "onboard" device at the same time.
> >
> > Ping.  I think this patch is an improvement, but I didn't want the
> > opportunity to remove more dead code pass by.  Any comments?
> Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan at coresystems.de> for removing all the
> ->onboard stuff.
>
> >
> >      from src/drivers/pci/onboard.c:
> >
> >     static void onboard_enable(device_t dev)
> >     {
> >         struct drivers_pci_onboard_config *conf;
> >             conf = dev->chip_info;
> >         dev->rom_address = conf->rom_address;
> >     }
> >
> >     Does it make sense to change ROM handling so that only "onboard"
> >     devices can have their ROMs run?  That's the way it used to be,
> right?
> >
> No. Plugin cards (graphics cards) need to have their ROM run, too.
>
I meant should "onboard" devices be the only ones allowed to have ROMs in
CBFS, but I can see that that wasn't right either.  It just seems like when
we made the change to CBFS we allowed a lot more devices to have ROMs in
CBFS, and I was wondering if that was intentional, or a side-effect.

Thanks,
Myles
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20091105/36eb395e/attachment.html>


More information about the coreboot mailing list