On 27 Jun 2002, ollie lho wrote: > 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 ??
exactly. The nsuperio thing is the way we should be going, because: 1) boards with multiple northbridges will happen (micron 21PAD supports this) 2) With the P4 cache-as-ram trick, we could actually support multiple motherboards with DIFFERENT northbridge parts, if we go to the nsuperio-like architecture. Ollie, if you want to start to set something like this up for northbridge I'm interested. ron
