[coreboot] New patch to review for coreboot: 995c74c Rename bootblock init functions

[ron minnich]

we made a decision in the early days to NOT include the chip part name
in the function names. This was not a mistake or omission, it was a
deliberate design choice.

The reason to name things this way is because a board is composed of a
set of parts, and the partname is in the file name path. Hence, the
board can be constructed of files calling functions with generic
names, and the generic functions are provided by files chosen in the
config. In some cases, it has proven trivial to port a mainboard to a
new chipset by changing only the config to use a different chip. The
fact that the function name did not include the chipname made this
trivial.

If we think that we really need the chip name in the function, ok, but
it's a change in the way we designed the build process. Maybe it's a
change we have to make. I am not yet convinced.


thanks

ron