Ram initialization and small c.

Ronald G. Minnich rminnich at lanl.gov
Thu Feb 13 14:50:01 CET 2003


On 13 Feb 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> Agreed. But at the same time our code base is such that hardwaremain()
> is not as fixed as it should be.  Which means that without great care
> things break.  

I'm assuming hardwaremain is dead, although I will be sorry to see our 
very first linuxbios message go in the ashbin of history. :-)

> Ron I don't know how to manage it but we need to setup a system where
> we have releases of the core codebase.   And one of the tasks of
> doing a release need to be to review the changes that went in since
> the last release so we can avoid things like a broken intel_chip_post
> macro.  Having code like that temporarily in CVS is fine.  In the core
> that is a pain.

absolutely. Here is where my experience falls short. Do you have (or does 
anyone have) experience with managing this sort of thing? 

I agree that the tree has been moving pretty quickly. I would request the 
committers to use the RFC process to this list before making far-reaching 
changes. Any change that involves .inc or .S files is far-reaching, no 
matter how small it looks.

ron





More information about the coreboot mailing list