[RFC 0/8] prom/console cleanups

[RFC 0/8] prom/console cleanups

[Julian Calaby]

Dave,

After having a good poke around in the patches you sent to address the PROM call regressions, I saw a few places where some files could be cleaned up and dropped.

These haven't even been compile tested as I currently lack the equipment - hence the RFC tags, however they're a few obvious changes and moving some code so they *should* be safe. ..... er scratch that. Test them, please?

Oh, and I hope this doesn't increase your workload any =)

Thanks,

Julian Calaby

Julian Calaby (8):
  sparc: prom: Sanitize return value from prom_nbputchar()
  sparc: prom: Use the return value from prom_nbputchar()
  sparc: prom: Use n instead of len to decrement buf
  sparc: prom: Remove unused definition of prom_stdin
  sparc: prom: Merge console_*.c into printf.c
  sparc: oplib: Remove prom_console_write_buf() definition
  sparc: prom: Make prom_console_write_buf() static
  sparc: prom: Update DaveM's email address

 arch/sparc/include/asm/oplib_32.h |    3 --
 arch/sparc/include/asm/oplib_64.h |    3 --
 arch/sparc/prom/Makefile          |    1 -
 arch/sparc/prom/console_32.c      |   56 ----------------------------
 arch/sparc/prom/console_64.c      |   48 ------------------------
 arch/sparc/prom/printf.c          |   73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 6 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 114 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 arch/sparc/prom/console_32.c
 delete mode 100644 arch/sparc/prom/console_64.c

Re: [RFC 0/8] prom/console cleanups

[Adrien Mazarguil]

On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 02:55:24PM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
> After having a good poke around in the patches you sent to address the
> PROM call regressions, I saw a few places where some files could be
> cleaned up and dropped.
> 
> These haven't even been compile tested as I currently lack the equipment -
> hence the RFC tags, however they're a few obvious changes and moving some
> code so they *should* be safe. ..... er scratch that. Test them, please?

I've tested your patches, I confirm they compile cleanly and work fine for
me.

-- 
Adrien Mazarguil

Re: [RFC 0/8] prom/console cleanups

[Julian Calaby]

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 20:42, Adrien Mazarguil <maz@p0d.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 02:55:24PM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
>> After having a good poke around in the patches you sent to address the
>> PROM call regressions, I saw a few places where some files could be
>> cleaned up and dropped.
>>
>> These haven't even been compile tested as I currently lack the equipment -
>> hence the RFC tags, however they're a few obvious changes and moving some
>> code so they *should* be safe. ..... er scratch that. Test them, please?
>
> I've tested your patches, I confirm they compile cleanly and work fine for
> me.

Thanks very much!

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
.Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/

Re: [RFC 0/8] prom/console cleanups

[David Miller]

From: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:55:24 +1100

> After having a good poke around in the patches you sent to address
> the PROM call regressions, I saw a few places where some files could
> be cleaned up and dropped.
>
> These haven't even been compile tested as I currently lack the
> equipment - hence the RFC tags, however they're a few obvious
> changes and moving some code so they *should* be safe. ..... er
> scratch that. Test them, please?

Thanks Julian, I'll look into reviewing and integrating these changes
soon.

Re: [RFC 0/8] prom/console cleanups

[Julian Calaby]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 04:41, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:55:24 +1100
>
>> After having a good poke around in the patches you sent to address
>> the PROM call regressions, I saw a few places where some files could
>> be cleaned up and dropped.
>>
>> These haven't even been compile tested as I currently lack the
>> equipment - hence the RFC tags, however they're a few obvious
>> changes and moving some code so they *should* be safe. ..... er
>> scratch that. Test them, please?
>
> Thanks Julian, I'll look into reviewing and integrating these changes
> soon.

No problem!

In the interests of clarity, I was planning to add a patch to do the
rename in #5 before doing the merge - and, once you'd pushed your
patch set out somewhere, I was planning to re-post all this as actual
patches, now that they're known to work. (thanks Adrien)

How would you like me to proceed? / How can I make your life easier?

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
.Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/