[coreboot] domain vs device statictree order
mylesgw at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 23:45:55 CET 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Jones [mailto:marcj303 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:16 PM
> To: Myles Watson; Marc Jones; ron minnich; Coreboot
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] domain vs device statictree order
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Ward Vandewege <ward at gnu.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 01:07:55PM -0700, Myles Watson wrote:
> >> >> I copied the reserved areas from i440bx_emulation. Like the
> >> >> say, I know these need to be reserved areas, but I'm not exactly
> >> >> where they belong.
> >> >>
> >> >> Compile tested.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com>
> >> >
> >> > There is just a PIC in the Geode so you don't need to reserve the
> >> > LAPIC range. You do still need to reserve the ROM range. Just fix up
> >> > the comment.
> >> >
> >> > Acked-by: Marc Jones <marcj303 at gmail.com>
> >> Rev 1111.
> > Still the same, sadly, cf attached.
> I see the graphics device still getting setup even though it has no
> memory. I think that is might be a problem. This patch hides the
> header before resource allocation and should avoid the problem and is
> completely untested.....
It seems cleaner to hide the graphics when there's no memory allocated, but
is the geodelx always paired with the cs5536? It's surprising to have them
be that tightly coupled.
I think I'd prefer to hide the device in the cs5536 stage2_fixup. That way
it can stay in cs5536, but get done in the right order. I would submit a
patch, but while I was there I saw that there are other things (ide vs nand)
that probably should be moved at the same time, and Mart's already working
More information about the coreboot