On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 16:39 -0700, ron minnich wrote: > we made a decision in the early days to NOT include the chip part name > in the function names. This was not a mistake or omission, it was a > deliberate design choice. > > The reason to name things this way is because a board is composed of a > set of parts, and the partname is in the file name path. Hence, the > board can be constructed of files calling functions with generic > names, and the generic functions are provided by files chosen in the > config. In some cases, it has proven trivial to port a mainboard to a > new chipset by changing only the config to use a different chip. The > fact that the function name did not include the chipname made this > trivial.
I agree with this design. It works as the file-specific functions are accessed only via the chip-specific _ops structure. And those structures do have the chip name in them. > If we think that we really need the chip name in the function, ok, but > it's a change in the way we designed the build process. Maybe it's a > change we have to make. I am not yet convinced. Bootblock is special, probably for simplicity the chip objects were dropped. BTW: There are boards with two super-ios. KM -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
