Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

makes sense to me. On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:10 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote: > 2016-02-04 10:35 GMT+01:00 Patrick Georgi : > > during the review of some commits that are in the process of being > > upstreamed from Chrome OS, people noticed

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

2016-02-04 10:35 GMT+01:00 Patrick Georgi : > during the review of some commits that are in the process of being > upstreamed from Chrome OS, people noticed that chipset drivers like to > define their own TRUE/FALSE defines (sometimes prefixed to), and I > have seen a bunch of

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

On 08.02.2016 12:10, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: > 2016-02-04 10:35 GMT+01:00 Patrick Georgi : >> during the review of some commits that are in the process of being >> upstreamed from Chrome OS, people noticed that chipset drivers like to >> define their own TRUE/FALSE

Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

>> On 08.02.2016 12:10, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: >> > 2016-02-04 10:35 GMT+01:00 Patrick Georgi : >> >> during the review of some commits that are in the process of being >> >> upstreamed from Chrome OS, people noticed that chipset drivers like to >> >> define their

[coreboot] Removed boards list.

Hi, When boards are removed, they are also automatically removed from the supported boards page[1] in the wiki. The unfortunate downside is that, assuming that coreboot worked fine on such boards in the past (and may still do), they don't show up in any list. A place where to put the list of