> -----Original Message----- > From: ron minnich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:55 AM > To: Myles Watson > Cc: Coreboot > Subject: Re: Subtractive Resources > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Myles Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My understanding is that the amd8111 _has_ a bridge, but the device that > is > > causing the problem is lpc, which is not a bridge, nor behind the > amd8111's > > bridge. So when its resources are read and it is found to have > subtractive > > resources, the code tries to descend. It doesn't have a bus, and this > > fails. > > you are right. I missed it. That's a good catch. > > Do you need those resources added for correct operation?
They get added fine. That's why I wanted to know why that code was there. > Even if we had a link, does it make sense to descend the link to read > subtractive resources? I don't know. > I like patch 1 but at the same time it feels like maybe we're not > getting at the right problem. If we're that point in the code, and > reading links, why are the links not there? I agree. It does happen when it goes through the domain, which I think is correct, and has no problems. > > Sorry I wasn't more clear. I meant that the fix no longer tries to call > > functions with NULL pointers. I don't think the dts is wrong, but I > think > > that there are a lot fewer intermediaries in v3 then there were in v2. > > Well, that I like to hear. > > Marc made the case that things such as superio should not even be > "under" the lpc in the dts, since they stand "outside" the tree in > some sense. He argued that we should instead put them at top level. > There is merit to his argument. This would simplify the lpc code as > well. I think it's fine to have the lpc define resources since that's who implements them, but I like the idea of the resource being visible from the domain (maybe not outside the tree.) Thanks, Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
