[PATCH] consolidate K8M890 VGA code

[Rudolf Marek]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello all,

Following patch changes the K8M890 VGA handling. It reverts the framebuffer size
to option based (similar what Uwe did) and also it uses GFXUMA to handle the
high_tables_start offset from memory top.

It adds HAVE_MOTHERBOARD_RESOURCES to kconfig because we do have the resources ;)

Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek

Rudolf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkrooN8ACgkQ3J9wPJqZRNUGeACeM7QCbwiHj6QpTDaCojxC8NjK
Qy0AnAl61XJfK/UB1NQOd4gB5HYJ8pJV
=f8uT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Myles Watson]

fbbits = ((log2(uma_memory_size >> 20) - 2) << 4);
Why not use CONFIG_VIDEO_MB here?  If it is going to be fixed at compile
time, it seems like you can get rid of uma_memory_size.

Thanks,
Myles

[Myles Watson]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> fbbits = ((log2(uma_memory_size >> 20) - 2) << 4);
>
> Why not use CONFIG_VIDEO_MB here?  If it is going to be fixed at compile
> time, it seems like you can get rid of uma_memory_size.

Either way:

Acked-by: Myles Watson

Thanks,
Myles

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 05:00:11PM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> > fbbits = ((log2(uma_memory_size >> 20) - 2) << 4);
> >
> > Why not use CONFIG_VIDEO_MB here?  If it is going to be fixed at compile
> > time, it seems like you can get rid of uma_memory_size.
>
> Either way:
>
> Acked-by: Myles Watson
>
> Thanks,
> Myles

NACK.

WHY?

Luc Verhaegen.

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:53:41PM +0100, Rudolf Marek wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello all,
>
> Following patch changes the K8M890 VGA handling. It reverts the framebuffer size
> to option based (similar what Uwe did) and also it uses GFXUMA to handle the
> high_tables_start offset from memory top.
>
> It adds HAVE_MOTHERBOARD_RESOURCES to kconfig because we do have the resources ;)
>
> Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek
>
> Rudolf

Wtf?

Do you really want to get rid of dynamically being able to set the FB 
size?

Why?

Don't you think that this is a feature that regular users of probably 
the only fully implemented coreboot motherboards might actually want to 
touch?

Why is no time being spent on removing the other options that actually 
harm booting this device? Why does this feel like more pointless 
pedanticity?

Luc Verhaegen.