Re: [coreboot] Multiboot

[Jordan Crouse]

On 18/09/08 23:59 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > +int run_address_multiboot(void *f)
> > +{
> > int ret;
> > __asm__ __volatile__ ("call *%3" : "=a" (ret) : "a" (MB_MAGIC2), "b" (0xf0000), "c" (f));
> > return ret;
> >
> > +}
>
> The function above belongs in multiboot.c

But you have subsequently turned down every other alternative (which were
far more complex, by the way).  Would you like to re-examine your comment
here?

I believe that the multiboot code makes us better, and I would like to
see it committed soon.  If you have a legitimate technical reason for
rejecting this patch, then please, let us have it, but stop trying to 
nitpick this patch to death.

Jordan