Revert socket abstraction change

[Myles Watson]

I agree that it's dangerous because it's not abstracted correctly yet.
 I'm not sure what the right fix is, but I don't think there should be
this much duplication in every socket Makefile.inc.

Maybe the best thing would be for someone to take a socket that
supports two families and implement it for Kconfig so that we can see
what shakes out.

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

Thanks,
Myles

[ron minnich]

Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich

Myles, not sure which is right, but per IRC discussion, let's take
this one slowly for now.

It's easy to fix later.

thanks again

ron

[Myles Watson]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:01 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich

Rev 4578.
> Myles, not sure which is right, but per IRC discussion, let's take
> this one slowly for now.

Sure.
> It's easy to fix later.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Myles

[Myles Watson]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Myles Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:01 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> > Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich
>
> Rev 4578.

I just realized that there was no microcode included for socket F, and
socket 940 needs it.  I need to add it back in.  Should I add it for
socket F at the same time?

Thanks,
Myles

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Myles Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Myles Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:01 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> > > Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich
> >
> > Rev 4578.
>
> I just realized that there was no microcode included for socket F, and
> socket 940 needs it.  I need to add it back in.  Should I add it for
> socket F at the same time?

yes please.

ron

[Myles Watson]

> > I just realized that there was no microcode included for socket F, and
> > socket 940 needs it.  I need to add it back in.  Should I add it for
> > socket F at the same time?
>
> yes please.

Rev 4579.

Now the only difference is that I didn't include smm for socket_940.
I don't think there are any socket_940 boards with smm support.

Thanks,
Myles