Attention is currently required from: Angel Pons, Arthur Heymans, Jérémy Compostella, Nick Vaccaro, Nico Huber, Tarun Tuli, Tim Wawrzynczak.
Shelley Chen has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/libgfxinit/+/67490?usp=email )
Change subject: gma: Update DP training with new fields ......................................................................
Patch Set 23:
(1 comment)
File common/ironlake/hw-gfx-gma-pch-dp.ads:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/libgfxinit/+/67490/comment/d4c611ea_35bf5477 : PS19, Line 26: Reason => "Needed for a common interface"
ada supports function overloading. […]
Hi Arthur,
I've been trying to take over this patch train from Tim/Jeremy, but am also trying to ramp up on Ada, so there is a lot about the language that I'm not familiar with unfortunately.
I was wondering if you could help me understand how we would do the function overloading here. My understanding is that Train_DP(), which is in common code, will call Set_Pattern(), Set_Signal_Levels(), and Off() functions. Ideally, since Haswell, Ironlake, and g45 do not need the extra parameters, they can overload these functions in their specific packages.
However, if Train_DP() is left in common code, how do we know from the calls in common code of Set_Pattern(), Set_Signal_Levels(), and Off() which signature to use? Is it worth it to pull Train_DP into the SoC specific packages with a different signature? I feel like this would create a lot of duplicate code.
Can I ask how you envisioned this being structured?
-
Shelley Chen (Code Review)