On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Peter Stuge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 concepts ron -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot