On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Aaron Durbin via coreboot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Alexandru Gagniuc > > As I have noted on http://review.coreboot.org/#/c/7924/ it's very > short sighted to go this route. In assembling a coreboot stack (which > includes libpayload and the payload itself) the code usually comes > from different software systems. Those include libpayload, linux > kernel, u-boot, etc. They all have the write(val, addr) semantics. I > see no good reason to artificially erect an ever present barrier for > integrating code into a coreboot system. >
This is a great reason to keep those accessors, IMO it tramps other considerations voiced on this thread. Let's be consistent with other software systems. --vb > Alex, you've clearly stated your opinion you've not justified a reason > for keeping the barrier. > > -- > coreboot mailing list: [email protected] > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
