-----Original Message----- From: ron minnich [mailto:rminnich@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:55 AM To: Myles Watson Cc: Coreboot Subject: Re: Subtractive Resources
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Myles Watson mylesgw@gmail.com wrote:
My understanding is that the amd8111 _has_ a bridge, but the device that
is
causing the problem is lpc, which is not a bridge, nor behind the
amd8111's
bridge. So when its resources are read and it is found to have
subtractive
resources, the code tries to descend. It doesn't have a bus, and this fails.
you are right. I missed it. That's a good catch.
Do you need those resources added for correct operation?
They get added fine. That's why I wanted to know why that code was there.
Even if we had a link, does it make sense to descend the link to read subtractive resources?
I don't know.
I like patch 1 but at the same time it feels like maybe we're not getting at the right problem. If we're that point in the code, and reading links, why are the links not there?
I agree. It does happen when it goes through the domain, which I think is correct, and has no problems.
Sorry I wasn't more clear. I meant that the fix no longer tries to call functions with NULL pointers. I don't think the dts is wrong, but I
think
that there are a lot fewer intermediaries in v3 then there were in v2.
Well, that I like to hear.
Marc made the case that things such as superio should not even be "under" the lpc in the dts, since they stand "outside" the tree in some sense. He argued that we should instead put them at top level. There is merit to his argument. This would simplify the lpc code as well.
I think it's fine to have the lpc define resources since that's who implements them, but I like the idea of the resource being visible from the domain (maybe not outside the tree.)
Thanks, Myles