> -----Original Message----- > From: Kumar Gala [mailto:ga...@kernel.crashing.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:54 PM > To: Wolfgang Denk > Cc: Aggrwal Poonam-B10812; u-boot@lists.denx.de > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] driver/fsl_pci: Added > fsl_pci_init_port function to initialize a single PCIe port. > > > On Aug 20, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > Dear Poonam Aggrwal, > > > > In message > > <1250775038-20372-1-git-send-email-poonam.aggr...@freescale.com > > > you wrote: > >> * Added a generic function fsl_pci_init_port in drivers/pci/ > >> fsl_pci.c > >> to initialize a PCIe port. > >> * fsl_pci_init_port can be called from board specific pcie > >> initialization > >> routine, per-port. > >> * This will reduce the code redundancy in the most of the > Freescale > >> board > >> specific PCIe inits. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Poonam Aggrwal <poonam.aggr...@freescale.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> > >> --- > > > > NAK. > > > > I see just dead code added, without any users. > > > > If this gets used somewhere, this should be visible in the > patch, and > > lead to code removed somewhere? > > It gets used in the patch 'Added PCIe support for P1 P2 RDB'. > I also will look at using it on other boards to remove code. > > However I don't think we need one patch that adds the > interface and does the board code changes or additions > (unless you have to do them to keep compiling sane). > > I agree this should have been label'd 1/2 and the 'Added PCIe > support for P1/P2 RDB' as 2/2. > Yes my mistake here, I should have shown the patch dependancy.
> - k > > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot