[coreboot] [PATCH] Simplify device enabling and initialization

[Ward Vandewege]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 07:36:39AM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ward Vandewege <ward at gnu.org> wrote:
> >> Hi Myles,
> >>
> >> Everything seems fine with either patch - but there are some differences in
> >> the boot output.
> >>
> >> I also ran the 'sensors' command.
> >>
> >> Output here:
> >>
> >>  http://ward.vandewege.net/coreboot/s2881/20100617-myles/
> >>
> >> I ran 4 tests: stock r5635 (head), stock r5632 (revision prior to this
> >> changeset), r5635 + patch 1 and r5635 + patch 2.
> > Thanks for testing.
> >
> > It looks like only 5632 has the "ADT7463 properly initialized"
> > message.  One problem is that patch 2 was meant to be applied after
> > patch 1, so the device didn't end up in the tree for that run.  I'll
> > have to think about why the only message from the new device with
> > patch 1 is "I2C: 00:d0 missing read_resources"  For some reason it
> > doesn't look like it got the correct ops.
> >
> > I wonder why the temperature values look right in all cases.  Does it
> > need to be cold booted in order for the initialization to be needed?
> 
> The ADM1027 doesn't expect to have children, so it has no scan_bus
> method.  I had thought that the ADM1027 was some kind of a controller
> for the ADT4763, but it looks like the same type of device.  Is there
> really an ADM1027 on your board?  I don't see it in your sensors
> output.
> 
> So...  the first two patches are the same as before.  The third patch
> adds a scan_bus method to the ADM1027 so that the ADT4763 can be
> initialized, and the fourth patch replaces the ADM1027 with the
> ADT4763 in the device tree, and removes the third patch.
> 
> I'd be interested in head + 1 + 2 + 3, and head + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4.

See 

  http://ward.vandewege.net/coreboot/s2881/20100621-myles/


The temperature differences (higher readouts in head + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 seem to
be the consequence of less than optimal cooling of the board - and the fact
that it was entirely cooled off before the first boot (head + 1 + 2 + 3)
only.

Thanks,
Ward.

-- 
Ward Vandewege <ward at fsf.org>
Free Software Foundation - Senior Systems Administrator