On 18/09/08 23:59 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > +
> > +int run_address_multiboot(void *f)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + __asm__ __volatile__ ("call *%3" : "=a" (ret) : "a" (MB_MAGIC2), "b"
> > (0xf0000), "c" (f));
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >
>
> The function above belongs in multiboot.c
But you have subsequently turned down every other alternative (which were
far more complex, by the way). Would you like to re-examine your comment
here?
I believe that the multiboot code makes us better, and I would like to
see it committed soon. If you have a legitimate technical reason for
rejecting this patch, then please, let us have it, but stop trying to
nitpick this patch to death.
Jordan
--
Jordan Crouse
Systems Software Development Engineer
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
--
coreboot mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
