[coreboot] Does the fam10 code work now? Patches for discuss.

[Myles Watson]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Bao, Zheng <Zheng.Bao at amd.com> wrote:

> amd_fam10_ht_sb_only.diff:
> I am not sure about this patch. Not sure to add signed-off-by line.
> Don't ack it before review it and say something.
>
> My board is Fam10 + 1 HT SouthBridge. It is close to dbm690t. So I
> set HT_CHAIN_UNITID_BASE as 0 and HT_CHAIN_END_UNITID_BASE as 1, even
> though I don't know well what they actually are.

HT_CHAIN_UNITID_BASE and HT_CHAIN_END_UNITID_BASE change the way the chain
is enumerated.

When HT devices are reset, their UNITID == 0  UNITID is very much like a pci
device number.  It is how the device claims configuration cycles.  All
devices implemented by a chip are offset by the unitid.

That means you can only send configuration cycles to the first device on the
chain.  After you check that device, if it has another HT link, you set the
unitid to something larger than 0 (say 0x20) and then you can access the
next device in the chain at unitid 0.

HT_CHAIN_END_UNITID_BASE is the unitid for the end of the chain.

For more information you'll have to read the code, because it seems to me
that these values get used for multiple purposes.

Base on currently fam10
> code, I have skip some code, otherwise the HT link can not be set up
> correctly. It is pretty like a workaround and my board can work in
> 1.8GHz (HT3). Doesn't the code in repository cover the mode of
> one HT processor + 1 HT SB device?


It does, as long as all the defines are correct.

To find out what the factory BIOS uses, you can look at lspci.

Thanks,
Myles
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20090625/09519f9e/attachment.html>