[coreboot] Resource allocation

[Myles Watson]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com> wrote:

> {
>        device_operations = "w83627thg_ops";
>        /* To override any of these, put the over-ride in mainboard dts. */
>
>        /* COM1 */
>        pnp at 2{
>                  com1dev = "2";
>                 com1enable = "0";
>                 com1io = "0x3f8";
>                 com1irq = "4";
>         };
>
>
>
> Questions I have no answer to:
> Before I put the pnp2 in , we got this:
>
>
> struct superio_winbond_w83627thg_dts_config domain_0_ioport_2e = {
>        .com1dev = 0x2,
>        .com1enable = 0x0,
>        .com1io = 0x3f8,
>
> etc.
>
> What should we get now?

struct superio_common_pnp domain_0_ioport_2e_pnp_2 = {
        .enable = 0x0,
        .io = 3f8,

struct superio_common_pnp domain_0_ioport_2e_pnp_5 = {
        .enable = 0x0,
        .io = 3f8,
etc.


> Should pnp2 be a device?

That's the way it is now.  I'm just making them static instead of dynamic.

> Child or sibling of w83627thg?

Child?  That's how I did it.


> What
> device_operations should it have?

Enable and set.


> One possibiltiy: if no
> device_operations property in the pnp at 2 node,
> inherit from parent.


That's how I did it the first time, but then I saw that you were already
passing it into the PNP code in the info structure, so I took it back out.


>
> What do you want to see?
>

I'm not picky if it works.  I could go back and implement it with it all
inside the device.  I would just have to change the PNP code a _lot_ more
than I did.  There would have to be more passes so that you could get the
devices set up, then go back and initialize them with resources.  I was
trying to minimize changes.

Thanks,
Myles
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20081113/41ea34e3/attachment.html>