[coreboot] Implementing or not implementing hacks for the OS (was: Change in coreboot[master]: ck804: hide IOAPIC base address in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_1)

[ron minnich]

digging a little deeper is always preferred to simply hiding the
register, so, thanks David!

ron

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:10 AM, David Hubbard
<david.c.hubbard+coreboot at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Paul, you missed part of the picture. Suppose we have a different
>> kernel, which does not have the same bug as Linux has,and that,
>> further, depends on that register being visible? We can't know that
>> such OSes exist, but we do not know that they do not. We'd have to at
>> the very least test some of them. We've always tried to avoid being
>> Linux-centric in coreboot and for the most part have succeeded.
>> Further, hidden registers create their own problems.
>>
>> This problem has no clear solution. I've always felt that in all
>> cases, we should err on the side of opening up the hardware, and not
>> hiding registers.
>>
>> ron
>
>
> I checked with Paul briefly on IRC, I think we may be missing something
> obvious here. IOAPIC support is pretty fundamental; maybe the ck804
> brokenness is fixable? (I'm willing to dig in a little deeper and find out
> what's going on here.)
>
> If so then there would be no need to make a special case for it in coreboot,
> right?
>
> David