[coreboot] [RFC] v3: Stack switching abstraction for C7 and later Intel processors
peter at stuge.se
Tue Oct 14 21:15:35 CEST 2008
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >> I believe the stage0_main name is misleading. After all, stage0
> >> is pure asm and lives in its own .S file.
> > let's call it stage1 then and main()
> Works for me.
I'm afraid I don't like that.
Please suggest something that makes the timeline obvious.
I think we already have other problems like this in v3.
I would be OK with adding phases to stage1 e.g. but I have also
contemplated flattening the stage/phase tree to only have stages and
no phases - though that doesn't have to happen right now.
More information about the coreboot