[PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and strcpy() functions.

[Uwe Hermann]

See patch.


Uwe.
-- 
http://hermann-uwe.de     | http://sigrok.org
http://randomprojects.org | http://unmaintained-free-software.org

[PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and strcpy()functions.

[Myles Watson]

> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Uwe Hermann
> Subject: [coreboot] [PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and
> strcpy()functions.

Thanks for factoring it out.  Why not put it in src/cpu/x86?  Does it need
its own directory?

Maybe there should be a src/cpu/x86/generic directory.

Thanks,
Myles

[PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and strcpy()functions.

[Uwe Hermann]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 02:28:12PM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > On Behalf Of Uwe Hermann
> > Subject: [coreboot] [PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and
> > strcpy()functions.
>
> Thanks for factoring it out.  Why not put it in src/cpu/x86?  Does it need
> its own directory?
>
> Maybe there should be a src/cpu/x86/generic directory.

Maybe, I did think about it shortly. I did not want to put it into the
top-level src/cpu/x86 directory as there were no other C files there
and also because the "subdirs-y +=" approach probably wouldn't work that way?

Also, what happens if there are multiple C files in src/cpu/x86/generic which
do not belong together, i.e., they solve different problems?

Wouldn't
  subdirs-y += ../../x86/generic
then include all of them? What if we only want/need to add one of the files
to the list of objects?

Or we'd need to use a different mechanism? Not sure.

Either way, I'm happy to move the file elsewhere, we just need to find
and agree upon the best location.


Uwe.
-- 
http://hermann-uwe.de     | http://sigrok.org
http://randomprojects.org | http://unmaintained-free-software.org

[PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and strcpy()functions.

[Stefan Reinauer]

Yes, processor_name as a directory is somewhat ugly ;-)

We talked about merging arch/i386 and src/cpu/x86 a number of times.. Maybe it's time to do this now?

Stefan

On 28.09.2010, at 22:28, "Myles Watson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > On Behalf Of Uwe Hermann
> > Subject: [coreboot] [PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and
> > strcpy()functions.
>
> Thanks for factoring it out.  Why not put it in src/cpu/x86?  Does it need
> its own directory?
>
> Maybe there should be a src/cpu/x86/generic directory.
>
> Thanks,
> Myles

[PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and strcpy()functions.

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Hermann [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:18 PM
> To: Myles Watson
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and
> strcpy()functions.
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 02:28:12PM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:coreboot-
> > > [e-mail]]
> > > On Behalf Of Uwe Hermann
> > > Subject: [coreboot] [PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and
> > > strcpy()functions.
> >
> > Thanks for factoring it out.  Why not put it in src/cpu/x86?  Does it
> > need
> > its own directory?
> >
> > Maybe there should be a src/cpu/x86/generic directory.
>
> Maybe, I did think about it shortly. I did not want to put it into the
> top-level src/cpu/x86 directory as there were no other C files there
> and also because the "subdirs-y +=" approach probably wouldn't work that
> way?
>
> Also, what happens if there are multiple C files in src/cpu/x86/generic
> which
> do not belong together, i.e., they solve different problems?
>
> Wouldn't
>   subdirs-y += ../../x86/generic
> then include all of them? What if we only want/need to add one of the
> files
> to the list of objects?
> I'm not sure how much space it saves us to include/remove those functions.
> It would be simpler to always include them.
> Or we'd need to use a different mechanism? Not sure.
>
> Either way, I'm happy to move the file elsewhere, we just need to find
> and agree upon the best location.

Sounds good.  Until then, I think your patch is an improvement.

Acked-by: Myles Watson <[e-mail]>

Thanks,
Myles

[PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and strcpy() functions.

[Peter Stuge]

Uwe Hermann wrote:
> +++ src/include/cpu/x86/processor_name.h	(Revision 0)

Please make that cpu/x86/name.h.

"processor" under cpu/ is redundant and kinda ugly. :)
> +++ src/cpu/x86/processor_name/processor_name.c	(Revision 0)

Maybe something like src/cpu/x86/name/name.c here?


//Peter