On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 11:13, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > ollie lho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Something OT, we have southbridge_fixup and mainboard_fixup as general > > purpose hooks for HW specific code. Why is there no northbridge_fixup > > at all ?? > > Two reasons I guess. > 1) As much as possible we want an archtecture that encourages generic/reusable > code. And the fixup functions don't inherently do that. >
I am also wondering why we don't have something in a more OO fashion. For example, we have different "classes" of objects like CPU, northbridge, southbridge, mainboard and superio, but we did not encapsulate them in anyway (except for superio as we do have struct nsuperio). And we are solving the portability problem with an "intendend namespace clash". Would it be better to to put them in the same way at least as nsuperio, would that be more generic and reusable ?? > 2) No one has needed one, so it hasn't been implemented. > I probably need one to setup clock gen correctly. In the current architecture, I have no way to insert the clock gen code without effect other non SiS chipset. If we have something I proposed in the previous paragraph, this code could be a private method in northbridge class. Ollie
