On 3 Sep 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I started digging through the code, but I am not completely there yet. It seems to me it would make sense to move the register "up" information from cpu k8 "cpu0" to the northbridge amd/amdk8 "mc0" definition since its information associated with the used southbridges.
The register "up" is something that has not been used at all yet. Personally I am not comfortable with the fact that we have both cpu and northbridge instances for the cpus..
yes, this is the eternal question. For the earlier version I put in northsouthbridge as a type because of stuff like the sis 630. Now, I always wondered if we should not have just kept southbridge/sis/630 and northbridge/sis/630, but acknowledging that they were in fact one chip seemed the way to go.
For the k8, we have a cpu and a northbridge. We could have a part called cpunorthbridge (ACK) but where does this end? It seems ugly. Is it better to just have a northbridge.c in the cpu/k8 directory and remove northbridge/amdk8?
There is currently no information on how the amd8131 and 8151 are actually linked.
Yes there is, but it is mostly implicit.
The issue is that we designed the config file hierarchy as parent/child. That is not enough of a topology description to allow the more complex topologies possible on the K8 systems. Thus you have to extend the topology with the per-chip "register" declarations.
Since every other system we have can be satisfied with the parent/child relationship, I think we ought to leave this be.
ron