[coreboot] Interesting device enumeration problem

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Tue Jul 7 23:22:00 CEST 2009

On 07.07.2009 23:14, Myles Watson wrote:
>> Can't we use a better name for this? Maybe call it "ignore" instead of
>> "disable"?
> The disable confusion is my fault.  In the Config.lb we turn things "on" or
> "off".  This sets the enabled flag, which makes sense to me.  I should have
> said I turned it off in the Config.lb.
> I think crystal clear terminology will be difficult to come up with here.

I remember having the same problem in v3 dts. Basically, there are four
possible states I can think of for devices:
1. Enabled
2. Disabled
3. Ignored
4. Hidden
(5. Configured, but enable not touched)

Not all states are possible on all chipsets, but from time to time one
of the functions is needed. By the way, we have various problems on
SuperI/O chips where we want to configure GPIOs with their own LDN and
the constraint is that the usual enable bit must not be set for the GPIO



More information about the coreboot mailing list