> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Dear Marek Vasut,
> >
> > In message <201110231646.59439.marek.va...@gmail.com> you wrote:
> >> I've been doing the debug() cleanup and found the debugX() macro is used
> >> only in very few patches. Maybe punting it altogether won't hu
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Marek Vasut,
>
> In message <201110231646.59439.marek.va...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>>
>> I've been doing the debug() cleanup and found the debugX() macro is used
>> only in
>> very few patches. Maybe punting it altogether won't hurt.
>>
On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:23:26 PM Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Marek Vasut,
>
> In message <201110231646.59439.marek.va...@gmail.com> you wrote:
> > I've been doing the debug() cleanup and found the debugX() macro is used
> > only in very few patches. Maybe punting it altogether won't hurt.
>
Dear Marek Vasut,
In message <201110231646.59439.marek.va...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> I've been doing the debug() cleanup and found the debugX() macro is used only
> in
> very few patches. Maybe punting it altogether won't hurt.
>
> The following do use it:
> ./board/spc1920/hpi.c
> ./drivers
Hi,
I've been doing the debug() cleanup and found the debugX() macro is used only
in
very few patches. Maybe punting it altogether won't hurt.
The following do use it:
./board/spc1920/hpi.c
./drivers/mtd/nand/s3c2410_nand.c
Opinions?
Thanks, Cheers!
___
5 matches
Mail list logo