Patch Set 19:
Patch Set 19:
Patch Set 19:
Patch Set 19:
Patch Set 19:
Coming back to this. I think we can agree that renaming of RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE(if really required) should probably be done as a separate commit and this change can focus primarily on clean up for the stage cache Kconfigs. Does that make sense?
https://mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/list/coreboot@coreboot.org/message/PCP6EI6UV6CFKVZCRO6SGDWIIWVGF5FQ/
In 24 April 2019 coreboot leadership minutes, you find mention that "Relocatable ramstage (on x86)" would be requirement for 4.11 release for platforms to stay on upstream master branch. I feel we just cause confusion if we rename the variable now, but no -2/+2 from me should such commit appear.
Equally my -2 here shall disappear if you can avoid the renaming.
I am totally fine with keeping "Relocatable ramstage" configs as is.
So lets clarify few things1. RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE name rename as is
2. ext_stage_cache.c file includes in rom/post/ramstage based on users selection of HAVE_EXT_STAGE_CACHE config
3. cbmem_stage_cache.c include is user doesn't selects HAVE_EXT_STAGE_CACHE and NO_STAGE_CACHE that means stage_cache move into internal cbmem
4. Anyway NO_STAGE_CACHE is dependent on HAVE_ACPI_TABLE.this patch today modifies #1 log and remaining it does as is. So, i will maintain #1 as mentioned above.
rest fine ? all agrees ?
sorry for typo
1. RELOCATABLE_RAMSTAGE name remain as is
I think its better to have separate Kconfigs just so that the checks don't become too complicated.
NO_STAGE_CACHE --> already exists
USE_EXTERNAL_STAGE_CACHE --> depends on !NO_STAGE_CACHE (can be selected by a mainboard/SoC that provides implementation of external stage cache).
USE_CBMEM_STAGE_CACHE --> defaults to y depending upon !NO_STAGE_CACHE && !USE_EXTERNAL_STAGE_CACHE. This can add cbmem_stage_cache.c to appropriate stages.
To view, visit change 33116. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.