[coreboot] [PATCH] Add the AML code generator for runtime code generation

Stefan Reinauer stepan at coresystems.de
Mon Feb 2 21:47:44 CET 2009

ron minnich wrote:
> Another question.
> Were we to follow the device object model, isn't it more proper to add
> a new device_operations struct member to devices to generate ACPI?
> Then we add another pass to the device code which walks the tree and
> each device can optionally create ACPI as it needs to. The first
> object is the mainboard, and this could do all the initial setup for
> the AML code generation.
The idea is definitely sound. But we're many steps before that, still.
With our device model, and with our ACPI support.

There are large portions of a DSDT that are "not just the device tree",
but a lot more. We can start feeding that stuff into our device tree.
That's a thing I was yelling about already, too. But then we have a
complicated device tree and a complicated generator. Seeing the
complexity of ACPI in all its shades, I am slightly, temporarily scared

> If we had this I think the weak symbol would not be needed. 

Absolutely. But it means creating a new framework that is much more
enhanced than what we have today.

> This would
> drop very nicely in to v3: I would add a phase7_acpi struct member to
> device_operations.
It does sound a bit like v4. This is why it is so good.

coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
      Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: info at coresystems.dehttp://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg • HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer • Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20090202/aed2840a/attachment.sig>

More information about the coreboot mailing list