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
> 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
> 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.
> 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:
>>> 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
>> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org
baytrail and fsp_baytrail shares a lot of code.
Any ideas how we can merge these?
gpg: 390D CF78 8BF9 AA50 4F8F F1E2 C29E 9DA6 A0DF 8604