On 10/26/2009 11:18 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
I think it's pretty ugly to have 512 be the value for CONFIG_VIDEO_MB
that
means 512K. I know you didn't do that, but... Maybe we could just say
the
512K of RAM doesn't make that much difference and make the minimum 1MB?
Yeah, the 512KB thing is not really nice, but there's not much we can do
about it. We could turn VIDEO_MB into VIDEO_KB instead to have the same
unit everywhere, not sure if that's nicer or uglier.
I don't want to leave out valid options supported by the hardware
though, so the 512KB setting should stay. I think it's not _that_ big
of a problem as the uglyness is only visible to the developers of
two chipsets I think (i810 and i830), but not to the other developers
and especially not to the user (who sees nice menuconfig entries).
We can leave it as is IMHO.
Yes it is ugly but decimals would be uglier (0.5MB) especially in
calculations. Anyways if it is supported by the chip it should be there.
I don't think "supported by the chipset" is a strong enough argument. There
are lots of horrible configurations supported by chips that aren't supported
by coreboot. If there's a good argument why someone might want 512K of
video memory instead of 1MB, then that's a reason to keep it.
It is hard for me to believe that saving 512K of RAM matters to anyone.
I does when you don't care when you just use a shell (lamp server etc).
Also if your board only has 128MB on board memory, you may want to
conserve as much as you can.....
--
Thanks,
Joseph Smith
Set-Top-Linux
www.settoplinux.org
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
