On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:27:26PM -0400, Corey Osgood wrote: > Peter Stuge wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:12AM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote: > > > >> I used the name stage2.c for the code (not i82371xx.c) for now. > >> > >> Shall we do that for all our chipsets and devices? A stage1.c file > >> for early init stuff, and stage2.c for the "normal" code? > >> > > > > Does it scale? Will we be able to tell different stage2.o files from > > each other when linking etc? > > Good point. Should we go with stage2-82371xx.c or similar? Also, with
I don't think that's needed, the individual stage2.c and resulting stage2.o files are in different directories. > stuff like SMBus where in v2 we have a header that stores a bunch of > functions used in both "stage1" and "stage2" (example: nvidia mcp55, > intel i82801xx, etc), how do we define naming of those? I don't understand. Can you elaborate? Putting code in header files is probably a thing of the past in v3, I don't see much reason why we should do that. stage1.c will usually only contain very small pieces of code, and there won't be much overlap with what's in stage2.c, I guess. 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 [email protected] http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
