Re: [coreboot] Intel soc ACPI generation using soc/intel/common/block/acpi

[Julien Viard de Galbert]

> Le 8 févr. 2018 à 17:24, Aaron Durbin  a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Julien Viard de Galbert
>  wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > First sorry for mailing direclty those of you who are on the coreboot
> > mailing list.
> >
> > I’m currently in the process of upstreaming the changes we have on
> > denverton.
> > On the ACPI I see a lot in common with the code available in
> > soc/intel/common/block/acpi.
> > However this depends on PMC which depends on GPIO. And the GPIO code
> > conflicts with the code already in denverton so I can’t enable it. (I’ve not
> > checked
> > In details about the PMC code yet).
> >
> > What would be the best way to port it ?
> > Stick with what is working, duplicate some code but don’t break other
> >
> > platforms.
> > 2. Try to refactor the GPIO code and denverton code so they are compatible.
> >
> > For point 2 the thing is that I can test for other platforms and it will
> > really add more
> > work now. But if the longterm goal is to refactor all intel soc to mostly
> > use common/block
> > then this might be worth it.
> >
> > What are your recommendations?
>
> What are the actual changes in the gpio blocks compared to what's there?

I’ve not looked into the datasheet of other chips to see the difference.
But the code is really different.
The GPIO code in denverton looks like it’s been imported from the EFI code.

After looking again, it seams that the underlying hardware is similar (I checked
a few bits and they are at the same place).
However the ‘user' interface is really different: The denverton uses a configuration
structure based on enums and bitfields that is not present in common code.
> > Best Regards

Intel soc ACPI generation using soc/intel/common/block/acpi

[Aaron Durbin]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Julien Viard de Galbert
 wrote:
> Le 8 févr. 2018 à 17:24, Aaron Durbin  a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Julien Viard de Galbert
>  wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> First sorry for mailing direclty those of you who are on the coreboot
> mailing list.
>
> I’m currently in the process of upstreaming the changes we have on
> denverton.
> On the ACPI I see a lot in common with the code available in
> soc/intel/common/block/acpi.
> However this depends on PMC which depends on GPIO. And the GPIO code
> conflicts with the code already in denverton so I can’t enable it. (I’ve not
> checked
> In details about the PMC code yet).
>
> What would be the best way to port it ?
> Stick with what is working, duplicate some code but don’t break other
>
> platforms.
> 2. Try to refactor the GPIO code and denverton code so they are compatible.
>
> For point 2 the thing is that I can test for other platforms and it will
> really add more
> work now. But if the longterm goal is to refactor all intel soc to mostly
> use common/block
> then this might be worth it.
>
> What are your recommendations?
>
> What are the actual changes in the gpio blocks compared to what's there?
>
> I’ve not looked into the datasheet of other chips to see the difference.
> But the code is really different.
> The GPIO code in denverton looks like it’s been imported from the EFI code.
>
> After looking again, it seams that the underlying hardware is similar (I
> checked
> a few bits and they are at the same place).
> However the ‘user' interface is really different: The denverton uses a
> configuration
> structure based on enums and bitfields that is not present in common code.

That's what happens w/ out of tree patches and people take short cuts.
> Best Regards