Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

a300 picasso acpi debug #433

Closed
wants to merge 32 commits into from
Closed

a300 picasso acpi debug #433

wants to merge 32 commits into from

Conversation

orangecms
Copy link
Contributor

  • asrock/a300m-stx: Remove extraneous MSR APIC configuration
  • soc/amd/smn: format numbers with underscores
  • asrock/a300m-stx: Exceptions WIP
  • go boom
  • timer
  • debug print crap
  • Revert "debug print crap"
  • wip
  • soc/picasso: df topology
  • soc/picasso: topology
  • asrock/a300m-stx: disable legacy UART decode
  • asrock/a300m-stx: switch to port 0x80 debug output
  • Revert "asrock/a300m-stx: switch to port 0x80 debug output"
  • asrock/a300m-stx: make code readable
  • asrock/a300m-stx: make main readable
  • asrock/a300m-stx: SMN hack setup
  • asrock/a300m-stx: SMN WIP
  • asrock/a300m-stx: comment out SMN hack again
  • asrock/a300m-stx: put the stack somewhere else than GDT
  • asrock/a300m-stx: use EAX instead of ESP for writing PML4 to CR3
  • asrock/a300m-stx: move stack again
  • asrock/a300m-stx: print welcome once, not 32 times
  • asrock/a300m-stx: ACPI table debug
  • asrock/a300m-stx: ACPI table debug
  • asrock/a300m-stx: comment out some ACPI
  • asrock/a300m-stx: [WIP] watchdog notes
  • asrock/a300m-stx: [WIP] watchdog fun
  • asrock/a300m-stx: switch to using amd/common/boot
  • asrock/a300m-stx: remove redundant and unused code
  • AMD: Update x86_64 dependency to 0.14.0.
  • asrock/a300m-stx: downgrade x86_64 to 0.13.x
  • TEMP HACK: strip down common APCI setup
  • asrock/a300m-stx: comment out acpi_setup

@orangecms orangecms force-pushed the a300-picasso-acpi-debug branch 4 times, most recently from 349f95d to 128dc50 Compare May 15, 2021 00:49
orangecms and others added 25 commits May 22, 2021 02:32
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
copy over interrupts.rs from romecrb

Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Additional writes to the ACPI tables freeze the system, but so do
console writes within the ACPI table setup function. This is weird.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
This is yet another alignment with romecrb.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Danny Milosavljevic <danny.milo@datacom.wien>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Maslowski <info@orangecms.org>
@felixsinger
Copy link
Member

I think we can close this, since we are removing x86 support?

@orangecms
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think we can close this, since we are removing x86 support?

Wasn't the point to removed blob based ports? This is source-only.

@felixsinger
Copy link
Member

My understanding was that we drop x86 support in general, but I might be wrong.

@ArthurHeymans
Copy link
Contributor

My understanding was that we drop x86 support in general, but I might be wrong.

Maybe that statement was accidentally too broad but intended at not supporting necessary executable blobs like FSP?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants