> -----Original Message----- > From: Uwe Hermann [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:18 PM > To: Myles Watson > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and > strcpy()functions. > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 02:28:12PM -0600, Myles Watson wrote: > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:coreboot- > [email protected]] > > > On Behalf Of Uwe Hermann > > > Subject: [coreboot] [PATCH] Factor out fill_processor_name() and > > > strcpy()functions. > > > > Thanks for factoring it out. Why not put it in src/cpu/x86? Does it > need > > its own directory? > > > > Maybe there should be a src/cpu/x86/generic directory. > > Maybe, I did think about it shortly. I did not want to put it into the > top-level src/cpu/x86 directory as there were no other C files there > and also because the "subdirs-y +=" approach probably wouldn't work that > way? > > Also, what happens if there are multiple C files in src/cpu/x86/generic > which > do not belong together, i.e., they solve different problems? > > Wouldn't > subdirs-y += ../../x86/generic > then include all of them? What if we only want/need to add one of the > files > to the list of objects? I'm not sure how much space it saves us to include/remove those functions. It would be simpler to always include them.
> Or we'd need to use a different mechanism? Not sure. > > Either way, I'm happy to move the file elsewhere, we just need to find > and agree upon the best location. Sounds good. Until then, I think your patch is an improvement. Acked-by: Myles Watson <[email protected]> Thanks, Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
