On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 09:27:41PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: > > +#define RC63 63 > > Seriously? Please just remove these completely.
I tend to agree, but I'll have to look into what exactly these values mean and what "RC" stands for first. > > +++ src/mainboard/supermicro/x6dai_g/debug.c (Arbeitskopie) > .. > > + device = DIMM0; > > + while(device <= DIMM7) { > > int status = 0; > > int i; > > print_debug("\n"); > > @@ -296,7 +294,7 @@ > > print_debug_hex8(status); > > print_debug_char(' '); > > } > > - device += SMBUS_MEM_DEVICE_INC; > > + device++; > > print_debug("\n"); > > } > > The above is usually written with for(). Yes. And they should also not be duplicated in a bazillion files. It's on my TODO list. > > static const u8 spd_addr[] = { > > //first node > > RC00, DIMM0, DIMM2, 0, 0, DIMM1, DIMM3, 0, 0, > > Is this the only use of RC00? Great student code. The arrays seem to > be all the same, and replaceable with a completely trivial algorithm. > Or no? Maybe, will check. Fun thing is there are also some RC0, RC1 (note: only one digit) left in the romstage.c files, but these _seem_ to be a little different at least from a quick glance, but might also be yet another way to express the same things. Will look into this. Uwe. -- http://hermann-uwe.de | http://sigrok.org http://randomprojects.org | http://unmaintained-free-software.org -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot