Something I noticed after I sent the patch is that this code (with or without my patch) depends on the pointers being initialized to zero. Is that a valid assumption with gcc?
Thanks, Myles On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Myles Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > get_fx_devs() was called very few places, and it wasn't needed except the > first call. I combined them. > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Thanks, > Myles >
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
