Patch committed in r1071, thanks. On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10.12.2008 23:02, Myles Watson wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> You're welcome. I admit that off-by-one errors are pretty hard to spot > >> and your code really looked correct at the first glance. > >> We have an old saying at my university about such bugs: "Programmers are > >> either off by one or by a factor of two." It happened to me often > >> enough. ;-) > >> > >> > >> On 10.12.2008 22:51, Corey Osgood wrote: > >> > >>> Per Segher's email I'd prefer to go with > >>> Carl-Daniel's original suggestion of using 0x100000000. > >>> > > > > Sounds good. > > > > > > Even though the Kconfig solution proposed was ugly, could we think of a > > different one that would still live in Kconfig. It seems a lot nicer to > > catch it during configuration than during the build. > Yes and no, IMO. Yes in that, well, it gets caught earlier. No because there's no real way (that I know of...) to explain through Kconfig that the reason you can't set a larger ROM size is because of the CAR area, which could leave some users confused. -Corey
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
