[coreboot] Unifying IO accessor macros

Aaron Durbin adurbin at google.com
Wed Feb 18 18:35:13 CET 2015


On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Alexandru Gagniuc
<mr.nuke.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

http://review.coreboot.org/8483

>
>> 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.

Ok. A hurdle or a hoop. What's the point of adding more hoops? You
still haven't made any counter-argument to the practicalness of being
compatible with the software systems where coreboot gets contribution.
You have an opinion, sure, but I haven't heard anything aside from
"something is wrong".

The current landscape is:

coreboot is different than:

1. linux
2. uboot
3. libpayload
4. Anything using libpayload

Being different is not necessarily better. coreboot's usage is tiny in
comparison to the first 2 projects listed.

-Aaron



More information about the coreboot mailing list