On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Myles Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marc Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:42 PM >> To: Myles Watson >> Cc: Coreboot >> Subject: Re: [coreboot] Resource Allocation discussion >> >> Hi Myles, >> I will try to help..... :) >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Myles Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > The resource patches I submitted work fairly well, but still need a >> little >> > help. >> > >> > I haven't touched subtractively decoded resources, and that's where the >> > breakage is right now. >> > >> > Questions: >> > - Who should have a resource that moves all other IO resources above >> 0x400 >> > or 0x1000? >> >> What do you mean? By definition the subtractive port takes all >> unclaimed cycles. There should be a LPC or ISA bridge in the >> southbridge that forwards cycles that the legacy southbridge devices >> don't claim. > > Sorry. I wasn't clear enough again. What I meant was something more like: > > Since the resource allocation algorithm can't avoid resources that it > doesn't know about, who decides if the subtractive area to avoid is > 0x0-0x400, 0x0-0x1000, or some other range? If I declare some device to > hold these addresses so that no other resource ends up there, should it be > subtractive? I'm inclined to put it in the domain or in the SuperIO.
I think it belongs in the southbridge lpc/isa device which is in the domain. It should be 0x0-0x1000. Marc -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
