Re: [coreboot] Intel: How to share `tsc_freq.c` to select `UDELAY_TSC`

[Paul Menzel]

Dear coreboot folks,


Am Mittwoch, den 08.05.2013, 15:00 +0200 schrieb Paul Menzel:

> after having looked at how to port Aaron’s commit
> 
>         commit 7cb1ba9a61b244800eb65c08729f75d85a504de3
>         Author: Aaron Durbin <adur...@chromium.org>
>         Date:   Wed May 1 15:39:28 2013 -0500
> 
>             haswell: use tsc for udelay()
> 
>             Instead of using the local apic timer for udelay() use the
>         tsc.
>             That way SMM, romstage, and ramstage all use the same delay
>             functionality.
> 
>             Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/3169
> 
> to the i945-based T60, it looks like the following code
> 
>         +#include <stdint.h>
>         +#include <cpu/x86/msr.h>
>         +#include <cpu/x86/tsc.h>
>         +#include "cpu/intel/haswell/haswell.h"
>         +
>         +unsigned long tsc_freq_mhz(void)
>         +{
>         +       msr_t platform_info;
>         +
>         +       platform_info = rdmsr(MSR_PLATFORM_INFO);
>         +       return HASWELL_BCLK * ((platform_info.lo >> 8) & 0xff);
>         +}
> 
> is generic enough and can be used by the northbridges i945, i5000 and
> Sandy Bridge as
> 
>         #define MSR_PLATFORM_INFO               0xce
> 
> is true for the three of them.

that was incorrect. i945 and i5000 have the following code.

        msr = rdmsr(0x198);
        divisor = (msr.hi >> 8) & 0x1f;

> So where should `tsc_freq.c` be put and how should the header be
> included?

If two separate files have to be used, what would be a good naming?
`tsc_freq_0x198.c` and `tsc_freq_0xce.c` is not very intuitive.


Thanks,

Paul

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot