[coreboot] [RFC] v3: Stack switching abstraction for C7 and later Intel processors
rminnich at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 22:13:22 CEST 2008
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote:
> 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.
ok. pick one.
> 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.
oh not that. You don't put all your files in one directory do you :-)
There's nothing that wrong with a two level hierarchy. We even do it
in the post codes, I think we can do it via stagex/phasex type
More information about the coreboot