[LinuxBIOS] [RFC] v3: dts fixes and questions
ron minnich
rminnich at gmail.com
Sat Jun 30 23:32:24 CEST 2007
On 6/30/07, Uwe Hermann <uwe at hermann-uwe.de> wrote:
> Here's a patch which streamlines the dts contents a bit:
>
> - Every "thing" should have an "enable;" line (or am I missing some
> reason why they shouldn't?)
no, the enable is part of the device struct that is
device-independent, see device.h. You are right that every device
should have this, so it is device-independent.
>
> - Every "thing" should have the "enable;" as first entry, if it has one.
>
> - Constructors should come before other stuff, but after the "enable;".
no, see above. Not needed.
> Does the order in which variables are defined (e.g. ide0_enable) and in
> which the constructors are called matter? I.e. is there a semantic
> difference between
>
> {
> ide0_enable = "0";
> ide1_enable = "0";
> constructor = "i82371eb_constructors";
> };
>
> and
>
> {
> constructor = "i82371eb_constructors";
> ide0_enable = "0";
> ide1_enable = "0";
> };
no, it does not matter. The order in which the dtc generates these in
order declared, but people should not depend on that.
thanks for your patch. The enabled; that you are adding to dts is
fine, but hang on, stefan has another idea.
ron
More information about the coreboot
mailing list