coreboot December 2015

coreboot@coreboot.org

26 participants
42 discussions

Re: [coreboot] baytrail + fsp_baytrail
by Ben Gardner 07 Dec '15

07 Dec '15

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think we can cut down on some of the code redundancy, but as Alex > says, they are different chipsets, and we need to be careful about > trying to combine too much. > > Here are my suggested steps: > 1) Look for commonalities between baytrail and other chipsets and move > pieces things into soc/intel/common or southbridge/intel/common. > Let's not do a bunch of work just for baytrail that could help all the > intel chipsets. I think this should be done regardless of anything > that we decide about Bay Trail. > > 2) Figure out which changes in each directory should go to the other. > Each have gotten some fixes that should be shared with the other > directory. > > 3) Make the baytrail directory structures look as similar again - > rename the soc/fsp_baytrail/baytrail include directory to > soc/fsp_baytrail/soc/include to match what was done with soc/baytrail. > Or we can rename them both to just soc/(fsp_)baytrail/include. > Something, so long as they match. > > 4) Create a soc/intel/baytrail_common or soc/intel/baytrail/common > directory and move pieces that are the same for both chipsets into > those directories. Work on consolidation, and getting as much as is > reasonable into that directory. I'd prefer not to just leave files in > soc/intel/baytrail because then it's not obvious that the files are > shared between the two platforms. > > > Similar steps could be done for the other fsp/non-fsp directories: > cpu/(fsp_)model_206ax, northbridge/(fsp_)sandybridge, and > southbridge/intel/(fsp_)bd82x6x. > > Ben, Michael, Since you seem to be actively working in this code, how > do you feel about this? I'm OK with reducing duplication and unnecessary differences. There seems to be plenty of duplicate header files. Without a similar tree structure and filenames, it is difficult to compare the trees, so I'd sync that first. I'd prefer seeing common baytrail stuff in soc/intel/baytrail_common/ vs under baytrail/common. Ben > Martin > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Alex G. <mr.nuke.me(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/06/2015 08:18 AM, Alexander Couzens wrote: >>> hi, >>> >>> baytrail and fsp_baytrail shares a lot of code. >>> Any ideas how we can merge these? >> >> That's not a very good idea. There are different sets of interest which >> use those two code paths, and trying to unify that will only get people >> stepping on each others toes. >> >> At most, you can make fsp_baytrail/ use the CPU part of baytrail/, but >> leave the northbridge and southbridge parts alone. >> >> My advice, just stash the fsp_baytrail/ in some dark basement and forget >> about it. If it gets in the way or gives you trouble, let me know, but >> otherwise, just pretend it doesn't exist >> >> Alex >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

1 0

baytrail + fsp_baytrail
by Alexander Couzens 07 Dec '15

07 Dec '15

hi, baytrail and fsp_baytrail shares a lot of code. Any ideas how we can merge these? best, lynxis -- Alexander Couzens mail: lynxis(a)fe80.eu jabber: lynxis(a)fe80.eu mobile: +4915123277221 gpg: 390D CF78 8BF9 AA50 4F8F F1E2 C29E 9DA6 A0DF 8604

4 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot December 2015