On 03.10.2009 18:08, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> On 02.10.2009 11:54, Patrick Georgi wrote: >> >> >>> We need to have access to CMOS before CAR or raminit, or anything >>> interesting happens, really. And I'm not sure if our code supports >>> this everywhere already. >>> >>> >> IMHO access to CMOS before CAR is unnecessarily painful and I'd like to >> keep that out of the targets which don't need it (VIA/AMD). >> > > > Then how are we going to update CAR code in case a new CPU revision > needs an update while still keeping normal/fallback alive? >
This has never happened with any AMD or VIA CPU. And I highly doubt it happened with Intel CPUs. So why should we design for such an event? Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
