> Yeah, I didn't go for any clean up. We *shouldn't* be adding > any more explicit prom rev. checks to the code because we > now have an interface to check for prom "features" - see > sn_prom_feature_available(). Recollections of that in the hind-brain prompted me to think that there should be a better way. > Unfortunately these checks were added before the interface > was available and therefore the checks have to stay. Makes sense. > I can still do some clean up if preferred. No, 3-places doesn't really justify invention of a generic method ... and since you've already got a better method that will prevent this from spreading elsewhere, I'll take it as-is. -Tony - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|