On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:27:26PM -0400, Corey Osgood wrote:
Peter Stuge wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:12AM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
I used the name stage2.c for the code (not i82371xx.c) for now.
Shall we do that for all our chipsets and devices? A stage1.c file for early init stuff, and stage2.c for the "normal" code?
Does it scale? Will we be able to tell different stage2.o files from each other when linking etc?
Good point. Should we go with stage2-82371xx.c or similar? Also, with
I don't think that's needed, the individual stage2.c and resulting stage2.o files are in different directories.
stuff like SMBus where in v2 we have a header that stores a bunch of functions used in both "stage1" and "stage2" (example: nvidia mcp55, intel i82801xx, etc), how do we define naming of those?
I don't understand. Can you elaborate?
Putting code in header files is probably a thing of the past in v3, I don't see much reason why we should do that.
stage1.c will usually only contain very small pieces of code, and there won't be much overlap with what's in stage2.c, I guess.
Uwe.