> Personally, I'd just use a little 'x' in place of D or F in this case.
What if a chip has X as suffix? At least that was my thought not to
choose that. And that also might it can confuse people, since there is
no NCT6776X.
I think I'll just remove the suffix from this bikeshed and add a comment
inside the file. ;)
Regards
Felix
Hi!
> some vendor will come up with a way to break a naming scheme.
That why I choose NCT6776D and not NCT6776 as name.
NCT6776D and NCT6776F have a common datasheet and the only difference I
could spot was the package. But the manufacturer might release a chip
with a different suffix and slightly different functionality, which
would probably break stuff, when I call the chip just NCT6776.
Also the suffix is part of the name.
I think I keep NCT6776D as name and change the chip description to
CHIP_NAME("NUVOTON NCT6776D/F Super I/O")
Seems to be the best solution to me.
Regards
Felix
ron minnich wrote:
> some vendor will come up with a way to break a naming scheme.
The point is to not put things into the name (which is a plain string)
that aren't part of the vendor's name.
The only "scheme" that makes sense is to name things what they are.
This requires handling each and every case individually and carefully.
Trying to mechanically apply some standard or other is not useful.
I think we agree that each chip may have a new naming model. What is
important for coreboot is so incredibly simple:
Just represent the vendor's identification accurately. It is their
namespace.
//Peter
Dear coreboot folks,
what is the proposed naming for devices, which are identical but come in
different package variants and therefore have different model numbers?
Case at hand are the Nuvoton NCT6776D and Nuvoton NCT6776F [1]. Quoting
Felix Held [2]:
Superiotool reports the NCT6776D as a NCT6776F, since it has the
same ID (and probably the same die inside). The only difference
between the two chips is the package (NCT6776D: LQFP128,
NCT6776F: QFP128). The D/F in the part number is not the version
code or IC revision.
Since the boards sitting on my desk all have the NCT6776D chip,
I chose that suffix, but thought about dropping the suffix
completely, but wasn't sure if that is the better alternative.
What do you suggest for putting into
CHIP_NAME("NUVOTON NCT6776D Super I/O")
and for naming the variables and Kconfig options?
Thanks,
Paul
[1] http://review.coreboot.org/5450/
[2] http://review.coreboot.org/#/c/5450/5/src/superio/nuvoton/nct6776d/superio.c
Hello
I finally could compile, disabling DYNAMIC CBMEM which cause the
set_top_of_ram error.
Now I would like to test my result.
What is the command to test grub2.elf with qemu?
It is mentioned on http://www.coreboot.org/GRUB2 at the bottom of the page.
Thanks!
