On 6/10/10 12:27 AM, Myles Watson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Stefan Reinauer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/9/10 11:49 PM, Myles Watson wrote: >> >>> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[email protected]> >>> >>> Removed some warnings and fixed static.c generation when the >>> southbridge link is not 0. >>> >>> >> I didn't test this, but assuming we're not planning on getting rid of >> malloc anymore, this is >> > I'm willing to listen more before committing. I remember you brought > up getting rid of malloc, but I don't see how you can get away from > it. Are you suggesting a static global pool of resources and lists > that devices can use? Am I totally missing your point? > I believe it was easy when a device was just a fixed size huge array, but the more dynamic this gets it becomes more complex. We'd indeed need a fixed number of every "dynamic" data structure we have. Which makes little sense when we're looking into making coreboot use less memory and be more flexible. So I believe keeping malloc and having 68byte sized devices is better than dropping malloc and having 1KB big devices.
Stefan -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
