On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, David Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:14:11AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 11/08/11 11:08, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > Independently from this patch, I was wondering about this code: > > > > > >> + .macro senduart, rd, rx > > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MSM_HAS_DEBUG_UART_HS > > >> + @ Write the 1 character to UARTDM_TF > > >> + str \rd, [\rx, #0x70] > > >> +#else > > >> teq \rx, #0 > > >> strne \rd, [\rx, #0x0C] > > >> +#endif > > >> .endm > > > Why testing for zero in the #else part? The upper level code should > > > never call this macro with a null byte. > > > > I was wondering the same thing, I don't know why that test for null is > > there. I will dust off the old 7201a (literally) and see what I can find > > out. It certainly looks unnecessary. > > Perhaps this is a better fix? Google removed the 7201a code from > their tree quite a while back. I don't have any more working hardware > to test things with. > > David > > >From b4a76f1561d35d043f9266f8fe47725389ea7ba9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: David Brown <davidb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:44:05 -0800 > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: msm: Mark 720x targets as broken > > The 720x code is bitrotting. These have only been compile tested for > quite some time. Mark as broken now so they can be removed after a > while. > > Signed-off-by: David Brown <davidb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I certainly have no problem with that. Keeping unused code in the tree just increases maintenance costs for no gain. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
