Hi Bin, On 06/04 22:21, Bin Meng wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is a temparory hacking for testing U-Boot on a newer version > > MinnowMax board. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> > > --- > > > > arch/x86/dts/minnowmax.dts | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/dts/minnowmax.dts b/arch/x86/dts/minnowmax.dts > > index 7103bc5..9e1fcfc 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/dts/minnowmax.dts > > +++ b/arch/x86/dts/minnowmax.dts > > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ > > > > microcode { > > update@0 { > > -#include "microcode/m0130673322.dtsi" > > +#include "microcode/m0130679901.dtsi" > > }; > > }; > > > > -- > > Saket confirmed these two patches resolved the boot problem he saw. So > we will need think about how to better support such scenario that > different revision board with different stepping CPUs. Could be > multiple microcodes in one U-Boot image, or still one microcode with > some #ifdef #endif. Note FSP has the capability to accept multiple > microcodes as parameters in the FspTempRamInit(), but right now U-Boot > only specifies one. How do you think?
Why not just have a minnowmax common dtsi and then top level dts files for each revision of the board containing the ways they are different (such as microcode)? Thanks, Andrew _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot