On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 22:18, Ronald G Minnich wrote: > 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. >
Actually, this was part of my design (now dream ??) of the general purpose bootloader before I crashed my HD. Now I have to rethink it allover again. Ollie > ron >
