Hi Simon, On Oct 23, 2012 4:42 PM, "Simon Glass" <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Graeme, > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Hi Graeme, > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Hi Simon, > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >>>> Enable AHCI driver for Intel SATA devices. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >>>> --- > >>>> include/configs/coreboot.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/include/configs/coreboot.h b/include/configs/coreboot.h > >>>> index 3df085b..968a9c5 100644 > >>>> --- a/include/configs/coreboot.h > >>>> +++ b/include/configs/coreboot.h > >>>> @@ -45,6 +45,27 @@ > >>>> #undef CONFIG_WATCHDOG > >>>> #undef CONFIG_HW_WATCHDOG > >>>> > >>>> +/* SATA AHCI storage */ > >>>> + > >>>> +#define CONFIG_SCSI_AHCI > >>>> + > >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCSI_AHCI > >>>> +#define CONFIG_SATA_INTEL 1 > >>>> +#define CONFIG_SCSI_DEV_LIST {PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, \ > >>>> + PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_NM10_AHCI}, \ > >>>> + {PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, \ > >>>> + PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_COUGARPOINT_AHCI_MOBILE}, \ > >>>> + {PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, \ > >>>> + PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_COUGARPOINT_AHCI_SERIES6}, \ > >>>> + {PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, \ > >>>> + PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PANTHERPOINT_AHCI_MOBILE} > >>> > >>> This implies every coreboot board is Intel. When you start to > >>> introduce hardware specific U-Boot components, you need to introduce a > >>> board specific config file. > >>> > >>> Would it be better to have a CONFIG_X86_COREBOOT and a coreboot 'SoC' > >>> and no coreboot board? > >> > >> I am not sure about using the SOC - after all we might need that > >> concept soon on x86. Maybe we should create a new board config that > >> includes coreboot.h? > > > > SoC was the wrong abstraction - I think coreboot library is better > > (see my email I just sent) > > Yes, ok. I can do a patch to move it, or do you want to?
I think it would be best for you to move it. Presumably > this would come in after the patches that are already pending on the > mailing list? Yes. No big hurry > > > > >> Having said that I'm not sure how important it is right now. So far, > >> coreboot.h is actually a particular class of boards, all Intel based. > >> We can name it whatever we want when we actually have other boards > >> which are coreboot but not Intel. Up to you.... > > > > I plan on doing dev work on a AMD E350 based board 'soon'. The E350 is > > already supported by coreboot, so I'm planning on getting coreboot > > ported for this board and then run U-Boot from coreboot. So we can no > > longer assume all coreboot boards will be Intel based. > > Sounds good! Shall we rename coreboot.h to something like chromebook-x86.h? Even better would be to use the model name (which I assume would make the x86 tag redundant) Regards, Graeme
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot