| Submitter | Myles Watson |
|---|---|
| Date | 2009-08-21 18:09:18 |
| Message ID | <81648DB0C04043639ECC0215ECDA6CAB@chimp> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/164/ |
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Myles Watson<mylesgw@gmail.com> wrote: >> Let's first do AM2. Then nvidia south. And so on. >> >> OK, I am going to apply Cristi's patch, and, if it looks good, commit. >> Then we can do nvidia south. > From Cristi's patch: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/cpu/amd/microcode/Makefile.inc > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > +obj-y += microcode.o > > Let's not create a whole file for one obj. Can we just put that in > socket_AM2/Makefile.inc like the intel sockets do? > > obj-y += ../microcode/microcode.o The reason to create a whole file for one object is that, over time, kif we get more than one object, nobody has to change their makefiles -- we add to microcode/Makefile.inc. I think the subdir usage and extra Makefile.inc are fine, if we're going to have the directory. At same time, I'm not overly concerned either way. I have to go out rest of the day, the AM2 patch is almost there, Myles, can you and Cristi wrap it up? ron
> > Let's not create a whole file for one obj. Can we just put that in > > socket_AM2/Makefile.inc like the intel sockets do? > > > > obj-y += ../microcode/microcode.o > > The reason to create a whole file for one object is that, over time, > kif we get more than one object, nobody has to change their makefiles > -- we add to microcode/Makefile.inc. > > I think the subdir usage and extra Makefile.inc are fine, if we're > going to have the directory. OK. > At same time, I'm not overly concerned either way. I have to go out > rest of the day, the AM2 patch is almost there, Myles, can you and > Cristi wrap it up? I've made so many Kconfig mistakes I'm not sure I'm the right person to Ack & commit. But I don't have any objections to the patch. Myles
Patch
--- /dev/null +++ b/src/cpu/amd/microcode/Makefile.inc @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +obj-y += microcode.o