On Apr 15, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
In message: Re: [PATCH] 86xx: mark functions static, other minor
cleanups
on 15/04/2008 Timur Tabi wrote:
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
Valid point. Is there a precedent here -- like a printk indicating
that the old ID matched, to let the user know?
Not really, but a pr_warning() would be nice.
Done.
I've also removed the sbc8641 content from this patch, and rolled it
into the resend of those board specific patches. This is now just for
incorporating that same feedback into existing boards.
Thanks,
Paul.
---
From aa2d1dd871c7eb440b3947cf8952d28249acf218 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Gortmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:51:04 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] 86xx: mark functions static, other minor cleanups
Cleanups as suggested by Stephen Rothwell and Dale Farnsworth, which
incudes marking a bunch of functions static and add a vendor prefix to
the compat node check for uniqueness. We match on the old compat node
ID for one version and warn accordingly, so as to not plunge people
into silent boot death, as suggested by Timur Tabi.
can you add a commit about the change to the root compatible and its
eventual removal for backward compatibility.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
