[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