yes, and this is a perfect example of how one platform, which is not used, can cause unneeded features to persist and make the codebase more complex than it needs to be.
I support dropping it. On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 2:12 AM Arthur Heymans <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > In 2016 'uart_pci_addr' was added to the coreboot table entry for serial > devices. > (https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/14609) > It was done for the Intel Quark platform which has its uart on a PCI device > like other > Intel hardware. Right now only Quark sets this to a non zero value using an > awkwardly defined Kconfig parameter: CONFIG_UART_PCI_ADDR. It looks like only > tianocore uses this and it's > pretty much a NOOP used only to get the VID/DID of the PCI device. > > Should we update tianocore and just drop this for the lb_table? > Most other payloads don't even have this struct entry updated to contain this > entry... > Now our codebase has awkward code with "serial.uart_pci_addr = > CONFIG_UART_PCI_ADDR;" on a lot of platforms that don't even feature PCI and > there is no real use case as far as I can tell. > > Do any of your payloads use this in a meaningful way? > If not, can we just drop it? > > Kind regards > > Arthur > _______________________________________________ > coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
