On N, 2008-11-13 at 03:11 +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 13.11.2008 02:41, Peter Stuge wrote: > > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > > > >> we want to keep Geode targets consistent. > >> > > > > Says who? > > > > I say so and my clone agrees. ;-) > > > If a board is unique and we can't abstract in general code then > > mainboard/ code is fine. > > > > If the abstraction works for all the other boards, there is no reason to > have different codebases except to confuse people who want to port a new > similar board. > > We have lots of places in v2 where people made some change to one > specific board, but the change would have applied to lots of boards. > Later on, nobody could recall offhand why the files were different. To > be honest, the amount of code duplication we have in v2 with little > arbitrary changes sprinkled all over the map is one of the biggest > reasons why I try to avoid v2 wherever possible. Diffing two boards will > usually give you lots of differences which are in no way related to the > board configuration/hardware.
The difference here is that in DBE61 I call that sequence possibly multiple times, while for all others that is not the case, and it's just an unnecessary function call. I suppose we could add such a helper function for all boards if an inline keyword is added for it. That said, there's actually some things to improve there regarding what is called. For instance cpu_reg_init does many things, and only one part is memory related - at least where the SPD matters. Some other bits and pieces are also re-done on second call that might not be necessary. So I'm not sure if in the long run it's suitable for all boards. Perhaps that initialize_ram deal could end up in generic code even if the order of those operations has to always be like that (does it?). Regards, Mart Raudsepp -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
