Ram initialization and small c.
Ronald G. Minnich
rminnich at lanl.gov
Thu Feb 13 14:50:01 CET 2003
On 13 Feb 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Agreed. But at the same time our code base is such that hardwaremain()
> is not as fixed as it should be. Which means that without great care
> things break.
I'm assuming hardwaremain is dead, although I will be sorry to see our
very first linuxbios message go in the ashbin of history. :-)
> Ron I don't know how to manage it but we need to setup a system where
> we have releases of the core codebase. And one of the tasks of
> doing a release need to be to review the changes that went in since
> the last release so we can avoid things like a broken intel_chip_post
> macro. Having code like that temporarily in CVS is fine. In the core
> that is a pain.
absolutely. Here is where my experience falls short. Do you have (or does
anyone have) experience with managing this sort of thing?
I agree that the tree has been moving pretty quickly. I would request the
committers to use the RFC process to this list before making far-reaching
changes. Any change that involves .inc or .S files is far-reaching, no
matter how small it looks.
More information about the coreboot