Re: [LinuxBIOS] copy_secondary_start_to_1m_below() and non-smp

[Stefan Reinauer]

* Richard Smith  [060109 17:23]:
> > Yh Lu, this is your patch that broke things, I assume you will fix?
>
> I don't mind fixing it. (I already have for my tree) I just don't know
> which fix is prefered.  Either add a wrapper around the call or pull
> the definition out and make it compile to a empty function like it
> does when _RAMBASE is set to a large value.

IMHO the second one would be fine, we did that a couple of times in the
tree.  Both would be fine though I guess. Basically the fix that fixes
the other broken motherboards as well is the preferred one ;-)

Stefan