From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:13:47 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] e1000: Restructure and streamline PCI
	device probing
In-Reply-To: <85579850-725C-46CC-B6AF-9DE6D6683C82@boeing.com>
References: <1297467482-14864-1-git-send-email-Kyle.D.Moffett@boeing.com>
	<1297467482-14864-3-git-send-email-Kyle.D.Moffett@boeing.com>
	<20110412201751.4F36A1537B0@gemini.denx.de>
	<85579850-725C-46CC-B6AF-9DE6D6683C82@boeing.com>
Message-ID: <20110413051347.B5C4D151F83@gemini.denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear "Moffett, Kyle D",

In message <85579850-725C-46CC-B6AF-9DE6D6683C82@boeing.com> you wrote:
>
> indented by 3 levels:
> > hw->hw_addr = pci_map_bar(devno, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0, PCI_REGION_MEM);
> > printf("%s: ERROR: Can't enable I/O memory\n", nic->name);
> > printf("%s: ERROR: Can't enable bus-mastering\n", nic->name);
> > printf("%s: ERROR: EEPROM checksum is bad!\n", nic->name);
...
> Wrapping any of those lines will in fact make them much harder to read and
> dissimilar to the other nearly identical printf() calls in that piece of
> code; I strongly disagree that it is necessary.

What makes you think that

	printf("%s: ERROR: Can't enable I/O memory\n", nic->name);

was "much harder to read" than

	printf("%s: ERROR: Can't enable I/O memory\n",
		nic->name);

?

Please fix these!

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"In the long run, every program becomes rococo, and then rubble."
- Alan Perlis