Ward Vandewege wrote: > On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:46:57AM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Stefan Reinauer<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Another idea would be to get rid of SMP setup in CAR stage. It sounds >>> highly funky to me anyways. >>> >>> - Why are we doing this anyways? >>> o Is there a reason? >>> o No other SMP system except K10 does this. >>> >>> * How many ms do we benefit from that? (Honest question). Any at all? >>> >> This may fix one problem, but it does not fix the general problem: >> using cf8/cfc is not going to be safe on multiple cores, from my >> understanding. >> > > Not to complicate matters even further, but since we are talking about > locking - will any of this improve the 'many cores talking to serial at once' > problem? > > Yes, going non-parallel in CAR would. Finding a way to do locking via a (memory mapped) chipset register, would make it possible to fix that, too. With a lot of work. Just going MMCONF would not fix the printk thing.
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
