Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
Hi David, On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM, David Brownell davi...@pacbell.net wrote: On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote: Ack, I think we could collate those in revision history to Contributor's section? Here's the list: a0216266 ag AL ap cr cring db dr ge gp HK hn hp jeh kc map mg rg rr sb sg sh swa vp I have no idea why I'm in that list. These short names looks like are given to TI internal developers not the open-source contributors to this code. So, ag can mean Amit Agrawal or Andy Grover or anything else... Better to remove these short names from the revision history, it doesn't have any meaning. -- ---Trilok Soni http://triloksoni.wordpress.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/triloksoni -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
I have no idea why I'm in that list. These short names looks like are given to TI internal developers not the open-source contributors to this code. So, ag can mean Amit Agrawal or Andy Grover or anything else... Better to remove these short names from the revision history, it doesn't have any meaning. Nishanth probably can put some points here. -- ---Trilok Soni http://triloksoni.wordpress.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/triloksoni -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
Hi Trilok, -Original Message- From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Trilok Soni Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:54 AM To: David Brownell Cc: Felipe Contreras; Menon, Nishanth; Kanigeri, Hari; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history Hi David, On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM, David Brownell davi...@pacbell.net wrote: On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote: Ack, I think we could collate those in revision history to Contributor's section? Here's the list: a0216266 ag AL ap cr cring db dr ge gp HK hn hp jeh kc map mg rg rr sb sg sh swa vp I have no idea why I'm in that list. These short names looks like are given to TI internal developers not the open-source contributors to this code. So, ag can mean Amit Agrawal or Andy Grover or anything else... Better to remove these short names from the revision history, it doesn't have any meaning. I agree that short names are given to TI internal devlopers. The names need to be replaced with actual names while adding to the contributors section. regards Ramesh Gupta G -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
-Original Message- From: Trilok Soni [mailto:soni.tri...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:26 AM To: David Brownell Cc: Felipe Contreras; Menon, Nishanth; Kanigeri, Hari; linux- o...@vger.kernel.org; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history I have no idea why I'm in that list. These short names looks like are given to TI internal developers not the open-source contributors to this code. So, ag can mean Amit Agrawal or Andy Grover or anything else... Better to remove these short names from the revision history, it doesn't have any meaning. Nishanth probably can put some points here. Cards on table: I have never been involved personally on DSPBridge :(.. It is just this: as a developer we all contribute to something so that our legacy remains in some form.. Agreed various other motivations exist ;).. But personally, it feels good to see a tiny contribution being part of something else and being acknowledged for it.. do we as a community say: a) Lets kick all those oldies out.. They were yesteryear material, we can afford to forget them now. OR do we say b) Lets find who those guys are and ask them how they want to acknowledged here.. I mean, we all hate dirty code.. and I personally agree to Felipe's point that much of the old time revision history is eating bytespace and eyespace :(.. At the same time, I guess we still retain the old courtesy b/w one code hack to another :D.. Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
-Original Message- From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:06 PM To: Trilok Soni; David Brownell Cc: Felipe Contreras; Kanigeri, Hari; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history -Original Message- From: Trilok Soni [mailto:soni.tri...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:26 AM To: David Brownell Cc: Felipe Contreras; Menon, Nishanth; Kanigeri, Hari; linux- o...@vger.kernel.org; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history I have no idea why I'm in that list. These short names looks like are given to TI internal developers not the open-source contributors to this code. So, ag can mean Amit Agrawal or Andy Grover or anything else... Better to remove these short names from the revision history, it doesn't have any meaning. Nishanth probably can put some points here. Cards on table: I have never been involved personally on DSPBridge :(.. It is just this: as a developer we all contribute to something so that our legacy remains in some form.. Agreed various other motivations exist ;).. But personally, it feels good to see a tiny contribution being part of something else and being acknowledged for it.. do we as a community say: a) Lets kick all those oldies out.. They were yesteryear material, we can afford to forget them now. OR do we say b) Lets find who those guys are and ask them how they want to acknowledged here.. I mean, we all hate dirty code.. and I personally agree to Felipe's point that much of the old time revision history is eating bytespace and eyespace :(.. At the same time, I guess we still retain the old courtesy b/w one code hack to another :D.. May be just add one MAINTAINERS/CONTRIBUTORS file move all rev history here. Sorry.. not sure if this was already discussed. Regards, Khasim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Menon, Nishanth n...@ti.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Trilok Soni [mailto:soni.tri...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:26 AM To: David Brownell Cc: Felipe Contreras; Menon, Nishanth; Kanigeri, Hari; linux- o...@vger.kernel.org; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history I have no idea why I'm in that list. These short names looks like are given to TI internal developers not the open-source contributors to this code. So, ag can mean Amit Agrawal or Andy Grover or anything else... Better to remove these short names from the revision history, it doesn't have any meaning. Nishanth probably can put some points here. Cards on table: I have never been involved personally on DSPBridge :(.. It is just this: as a developer we all contribute to something so that our legacy remains in some form.. Agreed various other motivations exist ;).. But personally, it feels good to see a tiny contribution being part of something else and being acknowledged for it.. do we as a community say: a) Lets kick all those oldies out.. They were yesteryear material, we can afford to forget them now. OR do we say b) Lets find who those guys are and ask them how they want to acknowledged here.. I mean, we all hate dirty code.. and I personally agree to Felipe's point that much of the old time revision history is eating bytespace and eyespace :(.. At the same time, I guess we still retain the old courtesy b/w one code hack to another :D.. I thought b) was kind of agreed. In any case, after cleaning up the dsp-bridge I don't think many files will stay alive, many already have been removed (e.g. [1]), but let's see how it goes. [1] http://github.com/felipec/linux-omap/commit/8ab33fe0a83058d2f9be906c89842ff4486ce68b -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Menon, Nishanth n...@ti.com wrote: -Original Message- From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Felipe Contreras Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:06 AM To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Cc: Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando; Felipe Contreras Subject: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history No need for that with git. diff --git a/drivers/dsp/bridge/gen/_gt_para.c b/drivers/dsp/bridge/gen/_gt_para.c index 181fe41..b363590 100644 --- a/drivers/dsp/bridge/gen/_gt_para.c +++ b/drivers/dsp/bridge/gen/_gt_para.c @@ -24,14 +24,6 @@ * etc. into a fully bound image. Thus, GT_assert() can be retained in * a program for which GT_?trace() has been compiled out. * - *! Revision History: - *! - *! 24-Feb-2003 vp: Code Review Updates. - *! 18-Oct-2002 sb: Ported to Linux platform. - *! 03-Jul-2001 rr: Removed kfuncs.h because of build errors. - *! 07-Dec-1999 ag: Fxn error now causes a WinCE DebugBreak; - *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error. - *! But we did not have git history 1999-2003. we planning on loosing these contribs? Only if you want dspbridge to be merged which as time passes it's becoming more clear that you don't. I'm not a kernel developer, but I would challenge you to find a diver that has 1000 lines of revision history in the source code. Besides, how any of this can be useful? - *! 24-Feb-2003 vp: Code Review Updates. Ok, what are the updates? - *! 18-Oct-2002 sb: Ported to Linux platform. So? - *! 03-Jul-2001 rr: Removed kfuncs.h because of build errors. Nice, but who cares? - *! 07-Dec-1999 ag: Fxn error now causes a WinCE DebugBreak; Ahh, WinCE history in a Linux driver, very useful. - *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error. Not printk? I assume this is not related to Linux then. Are we going to find an issue at some point in time that we'll say: oh crap! if only we had the revision history log we could solve it! I doubt that, the revision history is useless without the actual changes. These lines are just introducing noise. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
Hi Felipe,
-Original Message-
From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contre...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:17 AM
To: Menon, Nishanth
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya
Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
- *! Revision History:
- *!
- *! 24-Feb-2003 vp: Code Review Updates.
- *! 18-Oct-2002 sb: Ported to Linux platform.
- *! 03-Jul-2001 rr: Removed kfuncs.h because of build errors.
- *! 07-Dec-1999 ag: Fxn error now causes a WinCE DebugBreak;
- *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error.
- *!
But we did not have git history 1999-2003. we planning on loosing these
contribs?
Only if you want dspbridge to be merged which as time passes it's
becoming more clear that you don't. I'm not a kernel developer, but I
Errr.. Not my attempt at a flame war ;).. But then, I am not sure if my comment
meant anything of the sort :)...
would challenge you to find a diver that has 1000 lines of revision
history in the source code.
snip
- *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error.
Not printk? I assume this is not related to Linux then.
Are we going to find an issue at some point in time that we'll say: oh
crap! if only we had the revision history log we could solve it!
Errr... in the old times of cvs kernel, before we shifted to bitkeeper and
later to git, rev history was unfortunately necessary to maintain some sort of
acknowledgement of contributions. Just greping linux-omap master branch grep
-Ri Revision History drivers/|cut -d : -f1|wc -l shows me 227 files of
similar drivers- legacy - agreed. I think bridge is in such a legacy driver.
If any new changes are done, it makes no sense to introduce an entry in the
revision history - agreed. These driver files have a history and folks have
done some work to make it useful, to remove their contributions would be, IMHO,
our disregard for what ever they did (good or bad).. ;) But then, that is just
my opinion..
Note: There are folks whose contributions are reduced to vp rr sp etc.. I
personally have no clue who they are but I guess they would rather be in git
log than in anonymous initials if given a choice today..
I doubt that, the revision history is useless without the actual
changes. These lines are just introducing noise.
DSPBridge has definitely a long way to go before being merged into mainline
kernel. Coding standard is one part of the story. Is this part of a code
cleanup effort to prep the code for merge to kernel? I think I have seen tons
of discussion on this previously.. If we are planning on prepping this driver
for mainline integration that is another discussion and this patch probably is
a tiny fragment to that. The bunch of history starts at [1] though..
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Ref:
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omapw=4r=10s=dspbridgeq=b
N�r��yb�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+{��f��{ay� ʇڙ�,j��f���h���z� �w���
���j:+v���w�j�mzZ+�ݢj��!�i
Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Menon, Nishanth n...@ti.com wrote: Hi Felipe, -Original Message- From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contre...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:17 AM To: Menon, Nishanth Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history - *! Revision History: - *! - *! 24-Feb-2003 vp: Code Review Updates. - *! 18-Oct-2002 sb: Ported to Linux platform. - *! 03-Jul-2001 rr: Removed kfuncs.h because of build errors. - *! 07-Dec-1999 ag: Fxn error now causes a WinCE DebugBreak; - *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error. - *! But we did not have git history 1999-2003. we planning on loosing these contribs? Only if you want dspbridge to be merged which as time passes it's becoming more clear that you don't. I'm not a kernel developer, but I Errr.. Not my attempt at a flame war ;).. But then, I am not sure if my comment meant anything of the sort :)... Contrary to what it might seem I'm not attempting a flame war either. It's not because of your comment, it's because TI has been very slow cleaning up the driver and reluctant of integrating clean-up patches. It seems to me as if TI thinks this driver is just fine, which is clearly not the case. would challenge you to find a diver that has 1000 lines of revision history in the source code. snip - *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error. Not printk? I assume this is not related to Linux then. Are we going to find an issue at some point in time that we'll say: oh crap! if only we had the revision history log we could solve it! Errr... in the old times of cvs kernel, before we shifted to bitkeeper and later to git, rev history was unfortunately necessary to maintain some sort of acknowledgement of contributions. Just greping linux-omap master branch grep -Ri Revision History drivers/|cut -d : -f1|wc -l shows me 227 files of similar drivers- legacy - agreed. I think bridge is in such a legacy driver. That shows me 31 files, none of which have more than a couple hundred lines, that is of course on linux mainline. BTW this is faster: git grep -i -l Revision History -- drivers/ | wc -l If any new changes are done, it makes no sense to introduce an entry in the revision history - agreed. These driver files have a history and folks have done some work to make it useful, to remove their contributions would be, IMHO, our disregard for what ever they did (good or bad).. ;) But then, that is just my opinion.. Note: There are folks whose contributions are reduced to vp rr sp etc.. I personally have no clue who they are but I guess they would rather be in git log than in anonymous initials if given a choice today.. Contributors can be specified as such: a contributors section at the top. No need to keep the revision history just for that. I doubt that, the revision history is useless without the actual changes. These lines are just introducing noise. DSPBridge has definitely a long way to go before being merged into mainline kernel. Coding standard is one part of the story. Is this part of a code cleanup effort to prep the code for merge to kernel? I think I have seen tons of discussion on this previously.. If we are planning on prepping this driver for mainline integration that is another discussion and this patch probably is a tiny fragment to that. The bunch of history starts at [1] though.. I'm interested on getting this into the mainline so I took the simplest of my cleanup patches and the one I thought would be less controversial. If TI does not intend to submit this to mainline it would be nice to say so, that way the people interested can stop waiting and take action. I myself am tired of waiting. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
Note: There are folks whose contributions are reduced to vp rr sp etc.. I personally have no clue who they are but I guess they would rather be in git log than in anonymous initials if given a choice today.. -- You and me might not know who vp, rr, and sb are :), but these guys know who they are and it is upto them as how they want to refer themselves. I think it is a disregard to these developers who might have worked over the years on Bridge if we just remove their names completely. Contributors can be specified as such: a contributors section at the top. No need to keep the revision history just for that. -- This looks like the way to go. Thank you, Best regards, Hari -Original Message- From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contre...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 5:21 AM To: Menon, Nishanth Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Menon, Nishanth n...@ti.com wrote: Hi Felipe, -Original Message- From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contre...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:17 AM To: Menon, Nishanth Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history - *! Revision History: - *! - *! 24-Feb-2003 vp: Code Review Updates. - *! 18-Oct-2002 sb: Ported to Linux platform. - *! 03-Jul-2001 rr: Removed kfuncs.h because of build errors. - *! 07-Dec-1999 ag: Fxn error now causes a WinCE DebugBreak; - *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error. - *! But we did not have git history 1999-2003. we planning on loosing these contribs? Only if you want dspbridge to be merged which as time passes it's becoming more clear that you don't. I'm not a kernel developer, but I Errr.. Not my attempt at a flame war ;).. But then, I am not sure if my comment meant anything of the sort :)... Contrary to what it might seem I'm not attempting a flame war either. It's not because of your comment, it's because TI has been very slow cleaning up the driver and reluctant of integrating clean-up patches. It seems to me as if TI thinks this driver is just fine, which is clearly not the case. would challenge you to find a diver that has 1000 lines of revision history in the source code. snip - *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error. Not printk? I assume this is not related to Linux then. Are we going to find an issue at some point in time that we'll say: oh crap! if only we had the revision history log we could solve it! Errr... in the old times of cvs kernel, before we shifted to bitkeeper and later to git, rev history was unfortunately necessary to maintain some sort of acknowledgement of contributions. Just greping linux-omap master branch grep -Ri Revision History drivers/|cut -d : -f1|wc -l shows me 227 files of similar drivers- legacy - agreed. I think bridge is in such a legacy driver. That shows me 31 files, none of which have more than a couple hundred lines, that is of course on linux mainline. BTW this is faster: git grep -i -l Revision History -- drivers/ | wc -l If any new changes are done, it makes no sense to introduce an entry in the revision history - agreed. These driver files have a history and folks have done some work to make it useful, to remove their contributions would be, IMHO, our disregard for what ever they did (good or bad).. ;) But then, that is just my opinion.. Note: There are folks whose contributions are reduced to vp rr sp etc.. I personally have no clue who they are but I guess they would rather be in git log than in anonymous initials if given a choice today.. Contributors can be specified as such: a contributors section at the top. No need to keep the revision history just for that. I doubt that, the revision history is useless without the actual changes. These lines are just introducing noise. DSPBridge has definitely a long way to go before being merged into mainline kernel. Coding standard is one part of the story. Is this part of a code cleanup effort to prep the code for merge to kernel? I think I have seen tons of discussion on this previously.. If we are planning on prepping this driver for mainline integration that is another discussion and this patch probably is a tiny fragment to that. The bunch of history starts at [1] though.. I'm interested on getting this into the mainline so I took the simplest of my cleanup patches and the one I thought would be less controversial. If TI does not intend to submit this to mainline it would be nice to say so, that way the people interested can stop waiting and take action. I
RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
-Original Message- From: Kanigeri, Hari Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:32 PM To: Felipe Contreras; Menon, Nishanth Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history Contributors can be specified as such: a contributors section at the top. No need to keep the revision history just for that. -- This looks like the way to go. Ack, I think we could collate those in revision history to Contributor's section? Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Menon, Nishanth n...@ti.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Kanigeri, Hari Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:32 PM To: Felipe Contreras; Menon, Nishanth Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando Subject: RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history Contributors can be specified as such: a contributors section at the top. No need to keep the revision history just for that. -- This looks like the way to go. Ack, I think we could collate those in revision history to Contributor's section? Here's the list: a0216266 ag AL ap cr cring db dr ge gp HK hn hp jeh kc map mg rg rr sb sg sh swa vp -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote: Ack, I think we could collate those in revision history to Contributor's section? Here's the list: a0216266 ag AL ap cr cring db dr ge gp HK hn hp jeh kc map mg rg rr sb sg sh swa vp I have no idea why I'm in that list. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history
-Original Message- From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Felipe Contreras Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:06 AM To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Cc: Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi DOYU; Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando; Felipe Contreras Subject: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history No need for that with git. diff --git a/drivers/dsp/bridge/gen/_gt_para.c b/drivers/dsp/bridge/gen/_gt_para.c index 181fe41..b363590 100644 --- a/drivers/dsp/bridge/gen/_gt_para.c +++ b/drivers/dsp/bridge/gen/_gt_para.c @@ -24,14 +24,6 @@ * etc. into a fully bound image. Thus, GT_assert() can be retained in * a program for which GT_?trace() has been compiled out. * - *! Revision History: - *! - *! 24-Feb-2003 vp: Code Review Updates. - *! 18-Oct-2002 sb: Ported to Linux platform. - *! 03-Jul-2001 rr: Removed kfuncs.h because of build errors. - *! 07-Dec-1999 ag: Fxn error now causes a WinCE DebugBreak; - *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error. - *! But we did not have git history 1999-2003. we planning on loosing these contribs? Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
