[coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

Hi all, during the review of some commits that are in the process of being upstreamed from Chrome OS, people noticed that chipset drivers like to define their own TRUE/FALSE defines (sometimes prefixed to), and I have seen a bunch of #define BIT{0-31} ..., too, because that seems to be the house

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

On 04.02.2016 22:25, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: > 2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth : >> I don't think we need redefinitions of TRUE/FALSE > We have no canonical definitions for TRUE/FALSE right now. > Contributions that use them (for whatever reason) tend to bring

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

Nico, I agree with you completely: non-zero is true, zero false. It's C. But I am starting now to feel like a dinosaur, b/c "Oh, and I'm trying to hang with the cool kids and use bool :)" -- Rusty It makes me want to start an emo coreboot programmer feed like this one:

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/04/2016 04:22 PM, ron minnich wrote: > Nico, I agree with you completely: non-zero is true, zero false. It's C. > But I am starting now to feel like a dinosaur, b/c > "Oh, and I'm trying to hang with the cool kids and use bool :)" -- Rusty > >

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

I don't think we need redefinitions of TRUE/FALSE Ron's argument against using BIT(16) makes sense to me. I don't have a problem with BIT16, 0x1, or (1 << 16) but #define VENDOR_BIT_16 0x1 seems like overkill. I'd really generally prefer some good definitions though instead of

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Nico Huber wrote: > On 04.02.2016 22:25, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: >> 2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth : >>> I don't think we need redefinitions of TRUE/FALSE >> We have no canonical definitions for TRUE/FALSE right

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth : > I don't think we need redefinitions of TRUE/FALSE We have no canonical definitions for TRUE/FALSE right now. Contributions that use them (for whatever reason) tend to bring local copies, and that's what I'd like to avoid. > How would

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

Vendors frequently ask us to use magic numbers, and have even requested at times that we remove explanatory text. We'll never get rid of magic numbers in this world :-( ron On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:25 PM Patrick Georgi wrote: > 2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

On 04.02.2016 10:35, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: > I think we should seek uniformity here: decide on some style, > recommend it, clean up the tree to match, and help people stay > consistent through lint tests. That's a good idea. > 2. BIT16 vs BIT(16) vs (1 << 16) vs 0x1 > I don't

Re: [coreboot] [RFC] Proposal for policy for changing the development guidelines

On 02/01/2016 11:36 AM, Martin Roth wrote: > What I don't read in that blog post is anything about the > coreboot project being a democracy. I'd normally find such a statement very disappointing, but I'm pretty certain you're off on that one. I'm not sure how involved you've been in coreboot

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

Hi there, This seems pretty simple. On 02/04/2016 01:35 AM, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: > Hi all, > > during the review of some commits that are in the process of being > upstreamed from Chrome OS, people noticed that chipset drivers like to > define their own TRUE/FALSE defines

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:29 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote: > > > 1. TRUE/FALSE > Do we want such defines? If so, TRUE/FALSE, or true/false, or > True/False, or ...? > should we start using bool ...? > > 2. BIT16 vs BIT(16) vs (1 << 16) vs 0x1 > I don't think

Re: [coreboot] bootfail on my Mohon Peak CRB.

If your platform still does not boot up, I would suggest you check the SoC revision on your platform with the microcode revision of your coreboot, these two revisions should be matched, if not, system will halt in a every early stage. Another possibility you should consider is that if the UART

Re: [coreboot] bootfail on my Mohon Peak CRB.

*RANGELEY_POSTGOLD4_FSP_004_20150924.fd is the FSP binary, you can rename it to FvFsp.bin and placed it to the path defined in coreboot, ie, * `../intel/fsp/rangeley/Fv*, to generate coreboot image.* On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:19 AM, 김유석 wrote: > Dear Martin. > > Thank's your

Re: [coreboot] ASUS KGPE-D16 Automated Test Failure

On 02/04/2016 11:38 AM, Raptor Engineering Automated Coreboot Test Stand wrote: > The ASUS KGPE-D16 fails verification as of commit > 4af905ac95685500e71fb32cf5cec430d1a75447 > > The following tests failed: > BOOT_FAILURE Taking the KGPE-D16 offline until we can get this sorted; too many

[coreboot] ASUS KGPE-D16 Automated Test Failure

The ASUS KGPE-D16 fails verification as of commit 4af905ac95685500e71fb32cf5cec430d1a75447 The following tests failed: BOOT_FAILURE Commits since last successful test: 4af905a skylake boards: disable ACPI PM Timer 6c1bf27 intel/skylake: disable ACPI PM Timer to enable XTAL OSC shutdown 50c3ba2