On 16.05.2009 20:06, Uwe Hermann wrote: > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 04:29:14AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> chipaddr is my favourite, though, because our accessor functions are >> named chip_read* and chip_write* and this would give us some naming >> consistency. Of course, said consistency can also be achieved by >> renaming the chip accessor functions to flash_read* and flash_write*. >> >> The name is a not important for me as long as we can kill volatile >> uint8_t * with it. >> :-) >> >> Do you want me to resend, and with which name? >> > > I'd say let's use flashaddr for now, but IMHO either name is fine. > > Acked-by: Uwe Hermann <[email protected]> >
Thanks, committed in r519. Apologies to everyone who has to readjust his/her patches against the tree. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
