[coreboot] [poll] device_t
ron minnich
rminnich at gmail.com
Fri May 8 18:57:08 CEST 2015
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:31 AM Aaron Durbin <adurbin at google.com> wrote:
>
> I personally feel that changing device_t type based on stage makes the
> code non-obvious and hard to follow.
>
> I'd rather we *always* provide simple u32 device_t functions in all
> stages while allowing struct device IO functions for use in ramstage.
>
>
that's pretty much the approach I tried to take in v3. While the device_t
stuff is cool it's too hard for my brain.
BUT, it's there, been in use for a long time, not sure this is the best
time to change it.
But The Will of the People will decide.
ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20150508/b6f7a8b3/attachment.html>
More information about the coreboot
mailing list