See patch.
Uwe.
From: coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org] 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
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 02:28:12PM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
From: coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org] 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.
-----Original Message----- From: Uwe Hermann [mailto:uwe@hermann-uwe.de] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:18 PM To: Myles Watson Cc: coreboot@coreboot.org 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: coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-
bounces@coreboot.org]
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 mylesgw@gmail.com
Thanks, Myles
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" mylesgw@gmail.com wrote:
From: coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org] 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
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
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
-
Myles Watson -
Peter Stuge -
Stefan Reinauer -
Uwe Hermann