On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 12:03:19AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070628 23:10]: > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 07:12:37PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > +#include <types.h> > > > +#include <lib.h> > > > +#include <console.h> > > > +#include <post_code.h> > > > +#include <device/device.h> > > > +#include <device/pci.h> > > > +#include <string.h> > > > +#include <msr.h> > > > +#include <io.h> > > > +#include <cpu.h> > > > +#include <amd_geodelx.h> > > > > The list of includes we need in every file is getting pretty large > > slowly... Should we introduce a linuxbios.h file which includes > > all "core" headers such as types.h, string.h, io.h and others? > > This would reduce the number of includes a lot. > > I get the impression that we can drop quite some of them. > > Having a general linuxbios.h might increase compile time quite a bit. > Can you do some measures and/or send a patch?
I don't think we should care about compile time too much (except it gets
_really_ long), readability and ease of understanding of the code is
more important.
I'll see if I can do some measurements, maybe next week or so, but I
don't believe the compile-time differences will be too dranmatic.
> > > + __asm__ __volatile__("FINIT\n");
> >
> > Should be a function in some header?
>
> What does it do?
I have no idea :) It's just a bit awkward to have assembly in various
different files. I thought our approach was to have 10-20 asm lines
for init, and the rest in C?
Uwe.
--
http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
