ron minnich wrote: > Another question. > > Were we to follow the device object model, isn't it more proper to add > a new device_operations struct member to devices to generate ACPI? > Then we add another pass to the device code which walks the tree and > each device can optionally create ACPI as it needs to. The first > object is the mainboard, and this could do all the initial setup for > the AML code generation. > The idea is definitely sound. But we're many steps before that, still. With our device model, and with our ACPI support.
There are large portions of a DSDT that are "not just the device tree",
but a lot more. We can start feeding that stuff into our device tree.
That's a thing I was yelling about already, too. But then we have a
complicated device tree and a complicated generator. Seeing the
complexity of ACPI in all its shades, I am slightly, temporarily scared
> If we had this I think the weak symbol would not be needed.
Absolutely. But it means creating a new framework that is much more
enhanced than what we have today.
> This would
> drop very nicely in to v3: I would add a phase7_acpi struct member to
> device_operations.
>
It does sound a bit like v4. This is why it is so good.
--
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: [email protected] • http://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg • HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer • Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
