On 12.02.2009 16:22, Myles Watson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> After lots of cleanups, bugfixes, feature extensions and testing, my >> diff to add Asus M2A-VM support to coreboot has shrunk almost to zero. >> > > If it weren't for the socket difference, I'd be interested to see if > the dbm690t would just work with the Asus changes and only have one > target. >
Right now I ignore the fact that thermal setup is completely wrong. The machine still boots, though. There are other differences as well. You're right about the striking similarities between targets, though. I'd really like to have one generic RS690/SB600 board and keep the differences well contained in separate files. My cleanups have been focued on that task. >> end >> end >> device pci 2.0 on end # PCIE P2P >> bridge (external graphics) 0x7913 >> - device pci 3.0 off end # PCIE P2P >> bridge 0x791b >> + #device pci 3.0 off end # PCIE P2P >> bridge 0x791b >> device pci 4.0 on end # PCIE P2P >> bridge 0x7914 >> device pci 5.0 on end # PCIE P2P >> bridge 0x7915 >> device pci 6.0 on end # PCIE P2P >> bridge 0x7916 >> @@ -257,9 +257,9 @@ >> device pci 14.3 on # LPC 0x438d >> chip superio/ite/it8712f >> device pnp 2e.0 off # >> Floppy >> - io 0x60 = >> 0x3f0 >> - irq 0x70 = 6 >> - drq 0x74 = 2 >> + #io 0x60 = >> 0x3f0 >> + #irq 0x70 = 6 >> + #drq 0x74 = 2 >> > Why does it matter if you comment out settings for a device that's > off? Same question for the pci 3.0 device above. > The weird thing is that the board wouldn't boot otherwise. These changes are fairly old, though, so it may be possible that they are no longer needed. It will be a week before I have access to the hardware again. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
