> > > 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, hold up. I was just informed there is a patch in-play which will conflict with this one: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ia64&m=113944733900687&w=2 It removes the prom rev. check from drivers/pci/hotplug/sgi_hotplug.c replacing it with a sn_prom_feature_available() call. It's obviously the preferrable code. Should I resubmit without a change to drivers/pci/hotplug/sgi_hotplug.c? Thanks, -Aaron - : 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
|