ron minnich wrote: > >> cpu_phase1 and cpu_phase 6 (for example) > > > > Please call it cpu_phase2 instead. Then: > > now I see. You want cpu_phase6 to be called cpu_phase2?
Yes, exactly! :) > Here is why I did not. I want to leave open the possibility that > hardware creates a need for other phases. However, I'm not picky > on this. While it is nice to plan ahead a little I would prefer if we just changed the numbering. This needs to be done for some non-CPU stages/phases too. I think we should just do it. //Peter -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
