On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:27:26AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 05:36:11PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > > 2014-09-30 5:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter :
> > > > Double negations just parse harder. Also this allo
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 05:36:11PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > 2014-09-30 5:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter :
> > > Double negations just parse harder. Also this allows us to ditch some
> > > init code since clearing to 0 dtrt. Also dit
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 05:36:11PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2014-09-30 5:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter :
> > Double negations just parse harder. Also this allows us to ditch some
> > init code since clearing to 0 dtrt. Also ditch the assignment in
> > intel_pm_setup, that's not redundant since we
2014-09-30 5:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter :
> Double negations just parse harder. Also this allows us to ditch some
> init code since clearing to 0 dtrt. Also ditch the assignment in
> intel_pm_setup, that's not redundant since we do the assignement now
> while setting up interrupts.
>
> While at it
Double negations just parse harder. Also this allows us to ditch some
init code since clearing to 0 dtrt. Also ditch the assignment in
intel_pm_setup, that's not redundant since we do the assignement now
while setting up interrupts.
While at it do engage in a bit of OCD and wrap up the few lines o
