> Myles Watson wrote: > > The attached patch calls init() again. It makes it match the comments > again. > > > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Peter Stuge <[email protected]> > > > > It makes sense to use values in the device tree to parameterize > > device code for specific mainboards, but I don't see the point of > > parameterizing mainboard-specific code from the device tree. > > It's no secret that I'd like coreboot to have zero mainboard-specific > code, and allow parameters to be used to completely describe a board.
In that case, are you sure you want to ack it? Right now there are very few boards that have mainboard init functions ( < 20). I think now is the time to migrate away from it if it's a bad idea. I don't think it would take very long to help Jens change the code so that the initialization that was done by the mainboard code gets done in the cs5536 code where it belongs. Thanks, Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
