On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 08:23:08 AM Vadim Bendebury wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Aaron Durbin via coreboot > > > 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. > Following that reasoning, we should switch to EFI style so we can better integrate vendorcode:
read32 -> LibVendorMemRead(..., AccessWidth32, ...) Doing what other software stacks do without a real reason, and just because it's trendy... Alex -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot