mylesgw at gmail.com
Fri Oct 24 20:14:51 CEST 2008
Something I noticed after I sent the patch is that this code (with or
without my patch) depends on the pointers being initialized to zero. Is
that a valid assumption with gcc?
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:
> get_fx_devs() was called very few places, and it wasn't needed except the
> first call. I combined them.
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the coreboot