[U-Boot] [PATCH 20/20] x86: config: Enable AHCI support for coreboot

[Simon Glass]

Hi Graeme,

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Hi Graeme,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> Enable AHCI driver for Intel SATA devices.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  include/configs/coreboot.h |   21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/configs/coreboot.h b/include/configs/coreboot.h
>>>> index 3df085b..968a9c5 100644
>>>> --- a/include/configs/coreboot.h
>>>> +++ b/include/configs/coreboot.h
>>>> @@ -45,6 +45,27 @@
>>>>  #undef CONFIG_WATCHDOG
>>>>  #undef CONFIG_HW_WATCHDOG
>>>>
>>>> +/* SATA AHCI storage */
>>>> +
>>>> +#define CONFIG_SCSI_AHCI
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCSI_AHCI
>>>> +#define CONFIG_SATA_INTEL              1
>>>> +#define CONFIG_SCSI_DEV_LIST           {PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, \
>>>> +                       PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_NM10_AHCI},       \
>>>> +       {PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL,           \
>>>> +                       PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_COUGARPOINT_AHCI_MOBILE}, \
>>>> +       {PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, \
>>>> +                       PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_COUGARPOINT_AHCI_SERIES6}, \
>>>> +       {PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL,           \
>>>> +                       PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PANTHERPOINT_AHCI_MOBILE}
>>>
>>> This implies every coreboot board is Intel. When you start to
>>> introduce hardware specific U-Boot components, you need to introduce a
>>> board specific config file.
>>>
>>> Would it be better to have a CONFIG_X86_COREBOOT and a coreboot 'SoC'
>>> and no coreboot board?
>>
>> I am not sure about using the SOC - after all we might need that
>> concept soon on x86. Maybe we should create a new board config that
>> includes coreboot.h?
>
> SoC was the wrong abstraction - I think coreboot library is better
> (see my email I just sent)

Yes, ok. I can do a patch to move it, or do you want to? Presumably
this would come in after the patches that are already pending on the
mailing list?

>
>> Having said that I'm not sure how important it is right now. So far,
>> coreboot.h is actually a particular class of boards, all Intel based.
>> We can name it whatever we want when we actually have other boards
>> which are coreboot but not Intel. Up to you....
>
> I plan on doing dev work on a AMD E350 based board 'soon'. The E350 is
> already supported by coreboot, so I'm planning on getting coreboot
> ported for this board and then run U-Boot from coreboot. So we can no
> longer assume all coreboot boards will be Intel based.

Sounds good! Shall we rename coreboot.h to something like chromebook-x86.h?

Regards,
Simon

>
> Regards,
>
> Graeme