[coreboot] Unifying IO accessor macros

[Alexandru Gagniuc]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 09:16:07 AM Aaron Durbin wrote:
> As I have noted on http://review.coreboot.org/#/c/7924/ it's very
> short sighted to go this route. In assembling a coreboot stack (which
> includes libpayload and the payload itself) the code usually comes
> from different software systems. Those include libpayload, linux
> kernel, u-boot, etc. They all have the write(val, addr) semantics. I
> see no good reason to artificially erect an ever present barrier for
> integrating code into a coreboot system.
> 
As Patrick already said, compared to the total effort to integrate external 
sources, the issue of argument order is insignificant. In the time you spent 
writing this email, you could have found out how to do it with coccinelle, and 
could have applied it to any number of sources.

> Alex, you've clearly stated your opinion you've not justified a reason
> for keeping the barrier.

If you think that something as simple as this is a barrier, then you're likely 
just copypasting code. In that case, I do want a barrier to protect you from 
yourself, and from putting up code that was no reviewed in its entirety. 
Really, it's not a barrier.

Alex