On 2014-07-29 at 15:02:42 +0200, Seunghun Lee <waydi1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This patch removes comment related to the delete code. > > CC: Lidza Louina <lidza.louina@xxxxxxxxx> > CC: Mark Hounschell <markh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Seunghun Lee <waydi1@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_cls.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_cls.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_cls.c > index 4b65306..06fc68b 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_cls.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_cls.c > @@ -1042,9 +1042,6 @@ static void cls_flush_uart_read(struct channel_t *ch) > * > * However, doing the statement below also incorrectly flushes > * write data as well as just basically trashing the FIFO. This bit also references the commented out/deleted code. IMO it would make sense to rephrase this entire comment block such that it explains what the original intention of this entire function was and the problem associated with it. How about something like: /* * For complete POSIX compatibility, we should be purging the read FIFO * in the UART here. * * However, clearing the read FIFO (UART_FCR_CLEAR_RCVR) also * incorrectly flushes write data as well as just basically trashing the * FIFO. * * Presumably, this is a bug in this UART. */ > - * > - * I believe this is a BUG in this UART. > - * So for now, we will leave the code #ifdef'ed out... > */ > > udelay(10); > -- > 1.7.9.5 > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
