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

Myles Watson mylesgw at gmail.com
Tue Sep 28 23:25:30 CEST 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Hermann [mailto:uwe at hermann-uwe.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:18 PM
> To: Myles Watson
> Cc: coreboot at 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 at coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-
> bounces at 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 at gmail.com>


More information about the coreboot mailing list