> Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Eric, >> >> Why there is no >> struct southbridge_amd_amd8131_config >> or >> struct southbridge_amd_amd8151_config > > Because they don't need an enable_dev method. > >> in ter static.c although we have >> chip southbridge/amd/amd8131 >> and >> chip southbridge/amd/amd8151 >> >> in the Config.lb? > > The chips are found by their pci_ids. > >> There is no >> struct chip_operations southbridge_amd_amd8131_ops >> nor >> struct chip_operations southbridge_amd_amd8151_ops >> nether. > > Currently struct xxxxx_config and struct chip_operations xxx_ops > are tied together. If you have you have both. > > We don't currently require a struct chip_operations. > > I have not thought enough about this to know if it is a good or > a bad thing. It is simply the way it was done and I have not changed it. > If we always required this we could remove the config directive > from the configuration language. > > Eric >
How does the config tool tell if there is chip_operation or not ? How does it know to generate struct xxx_config for northbridge but not the southbridge? Ollie _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
