[coreboot] PCI MMCONF on amdfam10

ron minnich rminnich at gmail.com
Mon Dec 16 21:35:51 CET 2013

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Kyösti Mälkki <kyosti.malkki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yet we have had commit 032c23db for 5 months:

which may mean, only, that the commit broke some things and nobody hit
those things until 5 months later?

Which is not at all unusual with a change of this type. It's why we
prefer that commits that are this far-reaching come with some amount
of testing.
That patch changed 7 mainboards; which of them were tested?

> I remember a week or so after this was merged you made that comment about
> i945 on a related change. I requested literature reference or a test case to
> see if I should revert. I got neither and the revert never took place.

It pays to listen to Stefan on matters such as these :-)

There are at least two reasons that your request might not have been
- the public docs and the hardware disagree (very common)
- the public docs and the NDA docs disagree (this is very common)
   and the vendor knows it (also really common)

> Until you are  more specific on your statement, I am reading it as follows:
>   Stefan added 'select MMCONF_SUPPORT_DEFAULT' on a mainboard with i945
>   and the board did not boot.

And sometimes that's about as good a diagnosis as you can get.

Expecting anything more is not always realistic. That's what makes
firmware so hard, sometimes.

Meanwhile, we have a commit that broke some hardware. What do you want
to do about it? I agree with Aaron, things might need to be tweaked,
but ...
who's got that old hardware, and the time to do it? Do you have a
board of that ilk and the time to figure it out?

How do you intend to resolve the problem caused by this commit?


More information about the coreboot mailing list