[LinuxBIOS] [PATCH][v3] Intel 82371FB/SB/AB/EB/MB southbridge support

Uwe Hermann uwe at hermann-uwe.de
Thu Jul 12 21:27:40 CEST 2007

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:27:26PM -0400, Corey Osgood wrote:
> Peter Stuge wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:12AM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> >   
> >> I used the name stage2.c for the code (not i82371xx.c) for now.
> >>
> >> Shall we do that for all our chipsets and devices? A stage1.c file
> >> for early init stuff, and stage2.c for the "normal" code?
> >>     
> >
> > Does it scale? Will we be able to tell different stage2.o files from
> > each other when linking etc?
> Good point. Should we go with stage2-82371xx.c or similar? Also, with

I don't think that's needed, the individual stage2.c and resulting
stage2.o files are in different directories.

> stuff like SMBus where in v2 we have a header that stores a bunch of
> functions used in both "stage1" and "stage2" (example: nvidia mcp55,
> intel i82801xx, etc), how do we define naming of those?

I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

Putting code in header files is probably a thing of
the past in v3, I don't see much reason why we should do that.

stage1.c will usually only contain very small pieces of code, and there
won't be much overlap with what's in stage2.c, I guess.

http://www.hermann-uwe.de  | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20070712/8ee6d4db/attachment.sig>

More information about the coreboot mailing list