On 3 Sep 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > I started digging through the code, but I am not completely there yet. > > It seems to me it would make sense to move the register "up" information > > from cpu k8 "cpu0" to the northbridge amd/amdk8 "mc0" definition since > > its information associated with the used southbridges. > > The register "up" is something that has not been used at all yet. Personally > I am not comfortable with the fact that we have both cpu and northbridge > instances for the cpus..
yes, this is the eternal question. For the earlier version I put in northsouthbridge as a type because of stuff like the sis 630. Now, I always wondered if we should not have just kept southbridge/sis/630 and northbridge/sis/630, but acknowledging that they were in fact one chip seemed the way to go. For the k8, we have a cpu and a northbridge. We could have a part called cpunorthbridge (ACK) but where does this end? It seems ugly. Is it better to just have a northbridge.c in the cpu/k8 directory and remove northbridge/amdk8? > > There is currently no information on how the amd8131 and 8151 are > > actually linked. > > Yes there is, but it is mostly implicit. The issue is that we designed the config file hierarchy as parent/child. That is not enough of a topology description to allow the more complex topologies possible on the K8 systems. Thus you have to extend the topology with the per-chip "register" declarations. Since every other system we have can be satisfied with the parent/child relationship, I think we ought to leave this be. ron _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
