Uwe Hermann wrote: > See patch. > > I'm happy for any comments. Also, I'm not sure how all this > hard_reset() stuff is meant to work. Many southbridges have _two_ > implementations of hard_reset(). Why? Some only have one. > Some have none, but I guess that's OK, as their RAM init or other > coreboot code doesn't need to reset the machine (?) > > And then there are various reset.c files in the mainboard directories > which don't look board-specific at all. I propose to drop them all and > provide one global hard_reset() function somewhere. Feasible? > It might silently break a lot of stuff. There's about 6 ways to reset a machine (probably more) and it's not always trivial to see why a certain reset method is needed at a certain time.
To your patch, I don't understand why you're suggesting to rename hard_reset to board_name_hard_reset(). That seems like an awful idea... Any reason for it? Stefan -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot