Am 15.04.2012 01:18, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 14 April 2012 18:39, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 14.04.2012 18:42, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> Register subclasses for each ARM CPU implementation (with the >>> exception of "pxa270", which is an alias for "pxa270-a0"). >> >> This is no longer accurate, we do have a subclass for "pxa270" again. > > Oops, yes. > >>> + /* "pxa270" is a legacy alias for "pxa270-a0" */ >>> + { .name = "pxa270", .initfn = pxa270a0_initfn }, >>> + { .name = "pxa270-a0", .initfn = pxa270a0_initfn }, >>> + { .name = "pxa270-a1", .initfn = pxa270a1_initfn }, >>> + { .name = "pxa270-b0", .initfn = pxa270b0_initfn }, >>> + { .name = "pxa270-b1", .initfn = pxa270b1_initfn }, >>> + { .name = "pxa270-c0", .initfn = pxa270c0_initfn }, >>> + { .name = "pxa270-c5", .initfn = pxa270c5_initfn }, >> >> Wrt the comment: What's your plan for these? I think an earlier patch of >> mine went back to keeping only "pxa270" and having the other ones be >> aliases for "pxa270" plus some object_property_set_int()s. Are you >> planning to keep their initfns around instead? > > I don't really have a plan here -- these are a little ugly but not > horrifically or wide-rangingly so, so I will probably leave them be > in favour of trying to deal with other bits of the codebase, unless > fixing them falls out in the wash of some kind of rev/patchlevel > property at some point. > >> Maybe just say "an alias for"? (no need to resend) > > Agreed.
Updated version Acked-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> Thanks, /-F > > -- PMM > -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg