Resource allocator in v2

[Myles Watson]

Does anyone have the stomach for reviewing patches so I can bring the
resource allocator from v2 to v3?

My board is broken and it's harder to debug because of the mutual recursion.

The other alternative is for me to just keep a monster patch on my stack,
but then it will never get merged.

Thanks,
Myles

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 09.05.2009 00:16, Myles Watson wrote:
> Does anyone have the stomach for reviewing patches so I can bring the
> resource allocator from v2 to v3?

Bring the resource allocator fro v2 to v3? Wasn't the original v3
resource allocator a copy of the v2 allocator? In that case, reverting
all resource allocator patches in v3 should fix this. Hmmm. Not good.
> My board is broken and it's harder to debug because of the mutual recursion.

Which board is this?
> The other alternative is for me to just keep a monster patch on my stack,
> but then it will never get merged.

I'd review, but my resource allocator knowledge is seriously lacking. I
gave up while trying to figure out reasonable device trees for HT+PCI
and resource inheritance.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:21 PM
> To: Myles Watson
> Cc: 'coreboot'
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] Resource allocator in v2
>
> On 09.05.2009 00:16, Myles Watson wrote:
> > Does anyone have the stomach for reviewing patches so I can bring the
> > resource allocator from v2 to v3?
>
> Bring the resource allocator fro v2 to v3? Wasn't the original v3
> resource allocator a copy of the v2 allocator? In that case, reverting
> all resource allocator patches in v3 should fix this. Hmmm. Not good.

Sorry.  v3 to v2. Long day.
> > My board is broken and it's harder to debug because of the mutual
>
> recursion.
> >
>
> Which board is this?

Tyan s2892.  Adding devices changes the order in which the resources are
enumerated and breaks a lot of weird things.
> > The other alternative is for me to just keep a monster patch on my
>
> stack,
> > but then it will never get merged.
>
> I'd review, but my resource allocator knowledge is seriously lacking. I
> gave up while trying to figure out reasonable device trees for HT+PCI
> and resource inheritance.

I don't think it's that bad if we take out the mutual recursion.  In my
opinion that makes it nearly impossible to follow.

Thanks,
Myles

[Joseph Smith]

On Fri, 8 May 2009 16:26:19 -0600, "Myles Watson" 
wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:21 PM
> > To: Myles Watson
> > Cc: 'coreboot'
> > Subject: Re: [coreboot] Resource allocator in v2
> >
> > On 09.05.2009 00:16, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > Does anyone have the stomach for reviewing patches so I can bring the
> > > resource allocator from v2 to v3?
> >
> > Bring the resource allocator fro v2 to v3? Wasn't the original v3
> > resource allocator a copy of the v2 allocator? In that case, reverting
> > all resource allocator patches in v3 should fix this. Hmmm. Not good.
>
> Sorry.  v3 to v2. Long day.
> > > My board is broken and it's harder to debug because of the mutual
> >
> > recursion.
> > >
> >
> > Which board is this?
>
> Tyan s2892.  Adding devices changes the order in which the resources are
> enumerated and breaks a lot of weird things.

I think this may be what is happening to me on the IP1000....

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 09.05.2009 00:26, Myles Watson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:21 PM
> > To: Myles Watson
> > Cc: 'coreboot'
> > Subject: Re: [coreboot] Resource allocator in v2
> >
> > On 09.05.2009 00:16, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > Does anyone have the stomach for reviewing patches so I can bring the
> > > resource allocator from v2 to v3?
> >
> > Bring the resource allocator fro v2 to v3? Wasn't the original v3
> > resource allocator a copy of the v2 allocator? In that case, reverting
> > all resource allocator patches in v3 should fix this. Hmmm. Not good.
>
> Sorry.  v3 to v2. Long day.

Oh lucky day. v3 to v2 makes me happy. :-)
> > > My board is broken and it's harder to debug because of the mutual
> >
> > recursion.
> >
> > Which board is this?
>
> Tyan s2892.  Adding devices changes the order in which the resources are
> enumerated and breaks a lot of weird things.
> > > The other alternative is for me to just keep a monster patch on my
> >
> > stack,
> > > but then it will never get merged.
> >
> > I'd review, but my resource allocator knowledge is seriously lacking. I
> > gave up while trying to figure out reasonable device trees for HT+PCI
> > and resource inheritance.
>
> I don't think it's that bad if we take out the mutual recursion.  In my
> opinion that makes it nearly impossible to follow.

OK, I'll try to review, but please don't trust them alone.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

[ron minnich]

I would love to see Myle's v3 allocator move to v2.

I've had a few complaints about the stage numbering/naming in v3 ....
would you preserve that or ...

btw latest svn gets me this:
Adjust rom_table_end from 0x000f04b8 to 0x00100000
qemu: fatal: triple fault
EAX=040005ff EBX=0001005c ECX=00000547 EDX=00004228
ESI=00100000 EDI=00000fff EBP=00000000 ESP=0000d163
EIP=000043fc EFL=00000002 [-------] CPL=0 II=0 A20=1 SMM=0 HLT=0
ES =0018 00000000 ffffffff 00cf9300

Ideas welcome. It's dying in:
00004304 t ide_init_i82371ab_eb_mb

thanks

ron

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ron minnich [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:59 PM
> To: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> Cc: Myles Watson; coreboot
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] Resource allocator in v2
>
> I would love to see Myle's v3 allocator move to v2.
>
> I've had a few complaints about the stage numbering/naming in v3 ....
> would you preserve that or ...

The naming is unimportant to me as long as it's clear that we:
1. Read resources
2. Allocate them
3. Write them to hardware

Last time I asked for suggestions there was no consensus on good names.

Thanks,
Myles

[ron minnich]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ron minnich [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:59 PM
> > To: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> > Cc: Myles Watson; coreboot
> > Subject: Re: [coreboot] Resource allocator in v2
> >
> > I would love to see Myle's v3 allocator move to v2.
> >
> > I've had a few complaints about the stage numbering/naming in v3 ....
> > would you preserve that or ...
>
> The naming is unimportant to me as long as it's clear that we:
> Read resources
> Allocate them
> Write them to hardware
>
> Last time I asked for suggestions there was no consensus on good names.

Then stick with the v2 names.

Thanks

ron

[Myles Watson]

> > > I've had a few complaints about the stage numbering/naming in v3 ....
> > > would you preserve that or ...
> >
> > The naming is unimportant to me as long as it's clear that we:
> > Read resources
> > Allocate them
> > Write them to hardware
> >
> > Last time I asked for suggestions there was no consensus on good names.
>
> Then stick with the v2 names.

Since v2 has one compute_allocate_resource it will become compute_resource
and allocate resource then.

Thanks,
Myles