I would really like this to be in the tree. It gives us a chance to do things in coreboot that go beyond C and assembly. So that's my $.02.
What harm would it do?
ron
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 9:00 AM Nico Huber nico.huber@secunet.com wrote:
Am 28.08.2015 17:51, schrieb Patrick Georgi:
2015-08-28 17:35 GMT+02:00 Nico Huber nico.huber@secunet.com:
I don't know if the real problem was that libpayload resides in it's own repository.
libpayload still shares a repo with coreboot. There were ideas to separate them, but that never materialized.
Ah, sorry. Got confused about that. What I meant is that they are not sharing a (code) tree.
But having simple device drivers in it's own place seems to be a good idea, for me.
If you want, I can setup a repo at coreboot.org, mirrored to github.com/coreboot, and we hook it up as submodule.
That would be convenient for external development...
That would place it somewhere below 3rdparty/ for consistency with the other submodules.
That might hinder people from taking part...
Your code, your decision.
I can't decide! why did I dare to ask :)
Nico
-- M. Sc. Nico Huber Senior Berater SINA-Softwareentwicklung Netzwerk- & Client-Sicherheit / Network & Client Security Division Öffentliche Auftraggeber / Public Authorities secunet Security Networks AG
Tel.: +49-201-5454-3635, Fax: +49-201-5454-1325 E-Mail: nico.huber@secunet.com Mergenthalerallee 77, 65760 Eschborn, Deutschland www.secunet.com ______________________________________________________________________
Sitz: Kronprinzenstraße 30, 45128 Essen, Deutschland Amtsgericht Essen HRB 13615 Vorstand: Dr. Rainer Baumgart (Vors.), Thomas Pleines Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr. Peter Zattler ______________________________________________________________________