On 03/26/2012 07:29 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 03/26/2012 10:54 AM, Isaku Yamahata wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:20:24PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> I'm also sure we will have to refactor the merge significantly again >>> for >>> the introduction of additional chipsets and PC boards. But unless those >>> requirements can already be specified (Isaku?), that might be >>> unavoidable. >> >> Agreed. At least I'd like pam/smram stuff decoupled from piix. > > s/piix/i440fx/ > > PAM/SRAM has nothing do to with the piix. Part of the problem with > the current layout is that the distinction between i440fx and piix is > not clear. The piix is just a SuperIO chip (and southbridge).
Right. > > I think the better approach is to have a PCNorthBridge base-class that > contains functionality like PAM/SRAM that both I440FX and Q35 inherit > from. I hate to transform this into a languagey discussion, but I don't think inheritance is the right thing here. While both 440fx and q35 are north bridges, the similar implementation of PAM/SMRAM is not part of that. It's just a random result of the chips' evolution. I think the code for PAM/SMRAM can be reused if the specs match, but using a has-a instead of an is-a relationship. As a counterexample, consider a northbridge that implements PAM/SMRAM differently. You'd have to refactor PCNorthBridge into two separate classes. With the other approach the new northbridge simply doesn't include the existing PAM/SMRAM implementation and instead implements its own. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
