2014-12-08 12:17 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:32:49AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> 2014-12-08 6:42 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: >> > On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 07:29:17PM +0100, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: >> >> Remove the function intel_output_name() that is not used anywhere. >> >> >> >> This was partially found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Queued for 3.20, thanks for the patch. >> >> This function was created for the "DDI personality" patches. We merged >> the function but never ended up merging the patch containing the >> callers... > > Oops, I've thought this is a renmant from the very first days of kms that > somehow stuck around. That's what I get for once not using git blame > excessively :( Want me to drop the patch again? I am not opposed to the removal of an unused function: I understand the value in the removal, and I also understand the reasons to keep it. I was just pointing the reason of why we got here: we merged patch 1/2 but ended up never merging patch 2/2 because we always spot some additional work required and it's a very low priority bug. If this function is removed, the next person to try to ressurrect the ddi personality patch can quickly resurrect it or even write a new implementation from scratch. It is your decision :) > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
