Makefile changes for symbols

Eric W. Biederman ebiederman at
Wed Nov 3 13:40:01 CET 2004

Stefan Reinauer <stepan at> writes:

> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederman at> [041026 12:50]:
> > Stefan Reinauer <stepan at> writes:
> > > Now that A stepping CPUs start dying out, could we not switch the reset
> > > mechanism to use LDTSTOP instead of a complete reset? 
> > > It's more solid and a lot faster.
> > 
> > Solid?  There are several errata with using LDTSTOP and you can not use it
> after
> > memory is initialized. 
> We don't do this anyways, do we?

Yes.  We avoid it but the generic code is run after memory is initialized.
> In situations with marginal timing for RESET#, there is less chance of
> something going wrong. Hardware is rarely perfect, and LDTSTOP# affects
> less of it, so it is a little more robust. 

Possibly.  At the same time reset# must be implemented and work correctly, as reset# is used
to during board power on.  Whereas it is not fatal if LDTSTOP# is implemented incorrectly.

I think you can tweak the calls to reset in the romcc compiled code to use LDTSTOP# on a per
motherboard basis so it may be worth trying to use LDTSTOP#.


More information about the coreboot mailing list