On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Alexandru Gagniuc <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 09:16:07 AM Aaron Durbin wrote: >> 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. >> > As Patrick already said, compared to the total effort to integrate external > sources, the issue of argument order is insignificant. In the time you spent > writing this email, you could have found out how to do it with coccinelle, and > could have applied it to any number of sources.
http://review.coreboot.org/8483 > >> Alex, you've clearly stated your opinion you've not justified a reason >> for keeping the barrier. > > If you think that something as simple as this is a barrier, then you're likely > just copypasting code. In that case, I do want a barrier to protect you from > yourself, and from putting up code that was no reviewed in its entirety. > Really, it's not a barrier. Ok. A hurdle or a hoop. What's the point of adding more hoops? You still haven't made any counter-argument to the practicalness of being compatible with the software systems where coreboot gets contribution. You have an opinion, sure, but I haven't heard anything aside from "something is wrong". The current landscape is: coreboot is different than: 1. linux 2. uboot 3. libpayload 4. Anything using libpayload Being different is not necessarily better. coreboot's usage is tiny in comparison to the first 2 projects listed. -Aaron -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
