On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Aaron Durbin via coreboot coreboot@coreboot.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Alexandru Gagniuc
As I have noted on http://review.coreboot.org/#/c/7924/ it's very short sighted to go this route. In assembling a coreboot stack (which includes libpayload and the payload itself) the code usually comes from different software systems. Those include libpayload, linux kernel, u-boot, etc. They all have the write(val, addr) semantics. I see no good reason to artificially erect an ever present barrier for integrating code into a coreboot system.
This is a great reason to keep those accessors, IMO it tramps other considerations voiced on this thread. Let's be consistent with other software systems.
--vb
Alex, you've clearly stated your opinion you've not justified a reason for keeping the barrier.
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
-
Vadim Bendebury