Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation

2011-01-04 Thread Peter Stuge
She, Kerry wrote: > I have made a little bit cleanup from the patches originally made > by Bao Zheng, > > This sb800 code is derived from sb700 implementation. > > Release this patch is NOT to confusing people, but make other > patches based on this implementation also works. > > So this patch d

Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation

2011-01-04 Thread Stefan Reinauer
* Peter Stuge [110104 12:21]: > She, Kerry wrote: > Thanks! I think this is a nice addition. Maybe we should add a > Kconfig option to choose between cimx and non-cimx? I think we should, once we actually hit a use case. -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/m

Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation

2011-01-04 Thread Peter Stuge
Stefan Reinauer wrote: > > Maybe we should add a Kconfig option to choose between cimx and > > non-cimx? > > I think we should, once we actually hit a use case. Um? This is the case right here. I say add it now and get the patch commited, then can remove in future if not used. //Peter -- core

Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation

2011-01-04 Thread Stefan Reinauer
* Peter Stuge [110104 22:18]: > Stefan Reinauer wrote: > > > Maybe we should add a Kconfig option to choose between cimx and > > > non-cimx? > > > > I think we should, once we actually hit a use case. > > Um? This is the case right here. Oh? Which board? I thought the patch said "for reference

Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation

2011-01-04 Thread Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
Auf 04.01.2011 22:21, Stefan Reinauer schrieb: > * Peter Stuge [110104 22:18]: > >> Stefan Reinauer wrote: >> Maybe we should add a Kconfig option to choose between cimx and non-cimx? >>> I think we should, once we actually hit a use case. >>> >> Um? This is

Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation

2011-01-04 Thread Stefan Reinauer
* Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [110105 00:05]: > Still, having the code checked in is IMHO better than having it on the > list. If there are any CIMx integration issues later, we still have the > alternative code (and as a nice benefit, we can actually touch that code > whereas CIMx should be kept uncha

Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation

2011-01-10 Thread Scott Duplichan
SB800 support. Thanks, Scott -Original Message- From: coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org] On Behalf Of Bao, Zheng Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 08:20 PM To: coreboot@coreboot.org Subject: Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation I

Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation

2011-01-10 Thread Bao, Zheng
> -Original Message- > From: coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-boun...@coreboot.org] > On Behalf Of Scott Duplichan > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:03 AM > To: Bao, Zheng; coreboot@coreboot.org > Subject: Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb

Re: [coreboot] sb800 code derived from sb700 implementation

2011-01-18 Thread Stefan Reinauer
* Bao, Zheng [110111 03:19]: > I personally like this patch, not because I did. It is easy to use and > handle. I am gonna signed-off-by it. If I get support, I will check it in. > > Zheng > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Bao Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.o