From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45563 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OYc2k-0001OC-7R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 05:44:51 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>) id 1OYc2h-00054l-4w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 05:44:50 -0400
Received: from mail.valinux.co.jp ([210.128.90.3]:32991)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>) id 1OYc2g-00054E-TC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 05:44:47 -0400
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:45:00 +0900
From: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
Message-ID: <20100713094500.GF31689@valinux.co.jp>
References: <cover.1278935094.git.yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
	<33930ae88cd814000d782f802b962961a9bbad31.1278935094.git.yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
	<20100713005914.GB13722@morn.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100713005914.GB13722@morn.localdomain>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [SeaBIOS] [PATCH 2/7] seabios: shadow: make device
	finding more generic.
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin O'Connor <kevin@koconnor.net>
Cc: seabios@seabios.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 08:59:14PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 08:47:47PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > pam register offset is north bridge specific.
> > So determine the offset based on found north bridge.
> 
> Is it really just the offset that is north bridge specific?  I thought
> the entire process was very north bridge specific.
>
> If so, I don't think it makes sense to pass back the pam0 register -
> instead the north bridge specific code should do the necessary work
> (using helper functions if possible).
> 
> I have the same concern with part 3 and 4 of this series.

I440fx and Q35 (all Intel chipset?) are similar in registers
which seabios programs, so I choice to abstract it at register offset level.
I don't expect that other vendor's chipset support is wanted.

If you want more high level abstract, I'll respin the patch set.
-- 
yamahata