On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) a pci domain that's my error. Basically, I figured at the time that - everything was going PCIe - it was simpler to just have a domain on everything, and have it be "empty" and 0 on non-PCIe systems for what little time we had them. I.e. rather than have #ifdef everywhere just have a fixed set of rules as to the hierarchy. > b) a pci bus "device" whatever that is supposed to depict > c) a pci bridge (host bridge) > In many cases, we have chips that have a device function and a bridge function. Again, I may have made a mistake when I moved the code over. But there really are chips that have both functions. Also, I was doing my best to recreate the *function* of the v2 code. I agree that as a result we have weirdness inherited from v2 and we would do well to try to fix that. We can not fix all this stuff right away, but I am glad you are pointing out that we have a need for improvement ;-) Thanks ron -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
