Reworking the attribute is actually causing a huge pain in the ass with
relocations it looks like. I'm going to see if i can have the amdk8 MCT
code return the dimm_mask information back to the board via
sdram_initialize().
I could either just have sdram_initialize() return a merged version of
dimm_mask which would limit the number of dimms supported, or I could
pass in an additional non-static 'population' structure which i think
may be better.
Any thoughts?.. I'm going to modify my stuff to pass in a new structure in the meantime..
-san
San Mehat wrote:
> 1- I dont think we should be worried about names that are too long. I'd
> much rather have a long name than a non-descriptive one (or in this case
> a totally misleading one)
> 2- Changing the attribute shouldn't be that big of a deal.
> 3 - dimm_mask isn't exposed to the mainboard layer which is where we
> need it.
>
>
> As for 'why we need it', we have a post card which displays the DIMM
> population map on boot for our ops guys...
1. I'm ok with long names. These are rarely typed, more often read, and
should be correct.
2. yeah
3. yeah, expose as much info as we can. We're a bios.
can you send us a diff in -u format so we can take a look?
ron