On 04.08.2008 19:56, Peter Stuge wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 07:50:32PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >>> a patch to apply on top of Ron's commit. >>> >> If I'm successful, I'll be undoing 50% of Ron's patch. >> > > That doesn't matter. This is early work in progress. > Key word: progress >
If something has to be rolled back, it's the opposite of progress. >> - pci_write_config32(a, b, c); >> + pci_cf8_conf1.write32(NULL, 0, a, b, c); >> >> Can't we just use a macro for that stuff? >> #define PCI_WRITE_CONFIG32_EARLY(a,b,c) pci_cf8_conf1.write32(NULL, 0, a, b, >> c); >> > > Sorry, I don't see the point. I expect pci_cf8_* to change at least > once anyway. I think time is better spent elsewhere. > That's why I don't want it committed in the first place. The least intrusive change would be the following #define at the beginning of each affected C file: > #define pci_write_config32(a,b,c) pci_cf8_conf1.write32(NULL, 0, a, b, c); > No other code changes needed. It reduces code churn and keeps the familiar interface. With that change, I see no reason to hold the commit back. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
