[coreboot] patch: two bugs in the cs5536 ide code

Peter Stuge peter at stuge.se
Wed May 7 14:00:12 CEST 2008

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:50:46PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> > What was the reason for introducing multiple dts files for a single
> > chip again?
> >
> > Only the C struct name limitations?
> >
> > *scratches forehead* I kind of want the single dts per chip back..
> yep, me too. that's a concern.

What needs to change so we can just combine the split out dts files
into one?

> Also, I worry about people having to deal with the nasty little
> thicket of tons of little file, all (mostly) alike.

Yes, there is no point to that.

> And we've got a vendor/devid. At what point are we asking people
> to describe the bus/dev/fn too much?

I don't think this should be a concern.

The device tree is based on physical components and I think that is
the only clean design since that's how the hardware we try to
abstract is constructed.

I understand your worry, but keep in mind that "people" should only
have to describe the hardware once, when the chip dts is created.

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:53:51PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> "too greppy". Is this patch pushing us back that direction?

In the sense that more and more files now have less and less data
bits, yes definately.

I would love to solve this issue by moving (back?) to composite
devices in dts files.

Yes, this means a little more "magic" in dtc, but hopefully we can
still keep a simple (1:1?) device:struct relationship.


More information about the coreboot mailing list