status information

Eric W. Biederman ebiederman at
Sat Oct 30 13:30:01 CEST 2004

Stefan Reinauer <stepan at> writes:

> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederman at> [041029 00:44]:
> > > hmm, this sounds like a lot of potential pain for a small gain. Can we 
> > > talk about this a bit first. 
> > 
> > Sure.    First here are two examples.
> > struct chip_opertations cpu_intel_socket_mPGA479M_control = {
> > 	.name = "socket mPGA479M",
> > };
> > 
> > Killing the name for cpu sockets allows us to kill the whole
> > structure.
> What was the original intention of the structure? It might be nice to
> know how many sockets there are and what CPUs are in those sockets.. 
> (ie some dmi kind of information)

We still have the cpu information via the device tree. As far as distinguishing
cpus from sockets that is mostly a matter of refinement.

The code is currently structured so you pull in support for which
cpus your socket supports.  Which is the intention of having a socket

When we started generating device structures directly almost all of
the chip specific logic when away.  But just a tiny bit was left
because there are something things that you do on a chip basis
rather than on a device basis.

struct chip is gone.  struct chip_control was replaced by struct
chip_operations.  Which has now been pruned down to just one
method, at least for now.

> > If you like I will trade you gdb stubs for the currently useless
> > debugging string names. ;)  I just finished the code for that.
> > The conversations of the last couple of days inspired me. :)
> Hey.. this sounds cool! 

Done.  Check it out :)


More information about the coreboot mailing list