Re: [coreboot] r3053 - in trunk/coreboot-v2: . documentation documentation/RFC src/arch/i386 src/arch/i386/boot src/arch/i386/include/arch src/arch/i386/init src/arch/i386/lib src/arch/ppc src/arch/ppc/boot src/arch/ppc/init src/boot src/config src/console src/cpu/amd/car src/cpu/amd/model_gx2 src/cpu/amd/model_lx src/cpu/amd/sc520 src/cpu/emulation/qemu-i386 src/cpu/ppc/mpc74xx src/cpu/ppc/ppc4xx src/cpu/ppc/ppc7xx src/cpu/x86/32bit src/cpu/x86/car src/cpu/x86/lapic src/cpu/x86/pae src/devices/emulator/x86

[Peter Stuge]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:08:58PM +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
> See http://snapshots.linuxbios.org/
> See http://tracker.coreboot.org/

snapshots in the tracker?
> -unsigned long write_linuxbios_table( 
> +unsigned long write_coreboot_table(

Really?
> /* Create cmos checksum entry in linuxbios table */
> /* Create cmos checksum entry in coreboot table */
> lb_cmos_checksum(head);

Inconsistent since the function name doesn't change.
> struct lb_memory *get_lb_mem(void);

Likewise..
> -// Ported from Etherboot to LinuxBIOS 2005-08 by Steve Magnani
> +// Ported from Etherboot to coreboot 2005-08 by Steve Magnani

It wasn't called coreboot back then.
> { LB_TAG_ASSEMBLER,      linuxbios_assembler,      },
> { LB_TAG_ASSEMBLER,      coreboot_assembler,      },

LB_ ..

And probably many more. I stopped here.

I am with Carl-Daniel. I think we should consider reverting some
hunks of this patch.

//Peter

r3053 - in trunk/coreboot-v2: . documentation

[Stefan Reinauer]

* Peter Stuge  [080118 17:14]:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:08:58PM +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
> > See http://snapshots.linuxbios.org/
> > See http://tracker.coreboot.org/
>
> snapshots in the tracker?
> > -unsigned long write_linuxbios_table( 
> > +unsigned long write_coreboot_table(
>
> Really?
> > /* Create cmos checksum entry in linuxbios table */
> > /* Create cmos checksum entry in coreboot table */
> > lb_cmos_checksum(head);
>
> Inconsistent since the function name doesn't change.

good point. the lb_ stuff needs to be renamed. I vote for completely
dropping lb_.
> And probably many more. I stopped here.
>
> I am with Carl-Daniel. I think we should consider reverting some
> hunks of this patch.

I am against this. All the changes I made were basically hand checked.

But I will of course take patches for the remaining issues.

Please understand that a rename of the amount of files and diversity of
branding variations is nothing that can reliably happen in a single
commit.

Stefan