From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: remove dead kconfig option OMAP4_ERRATA_I688 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:27:37 -0700 Message-ID: <20150317172737.GE31346@atomide.com> References: <1424889867-8980-1-git-send-email-stefan.hengelein@fau.de> <20150316233005.GA2598@atomide.com> <550855B7.3020905@oracle.com> <550856FF.9080702@ti.com> <20150317163440.GC31346@atomide.com> <20150317171000.GD31346@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nishanth Menon Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Greg Kroah-Hartman , santosh shilimkar , lkml , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , linux-omap , Stefan Hengelein List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Nishanth Menon [150317 10:18]: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > Yes that's a good point and adding a printk is a good idea. Care to > > crank out a separate patch for that? > > > had hoped to have it part of this patch - does'nt that make more sense? Hmm well this patch removes code that's been dead for a few years.. I'd rather keep this as clean up, then merge what you're suggesting as a separate non-critical patch as that we could already do without removing this code. Regards, Tony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:27:37 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: remove dead kconfig option OMAP4_ERRATA_I688 In-Reply-To: References: <1424889867-8980-1-git-send-email-stefan.hengelein@fau.de> <20150316233005.GA2598@atomide.com> <550855B7.3020905@oracle.com> <550856FF.9080702@ti.com> <20150317163440.GC31346@atomide.com> <20150317171000.GD31346@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20150317172737.GE31346@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Nishanth Menon [150317 10:18]: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > Yes that's a good point and adding a printk is a good idea. Care to > > crank out a separate patch for that? > > > had hoped to have it part of this patch - does'nt that make more sense? Hmm well this patch removes code that's been dead for a few years.. I'd rather keep this as clean up, then merge what you're suggesting as a separate non-critical patch as that we could already do without removing this code. Regards, Tony