On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 04:31:44PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > SB600 SPI: Kill unused variable. > > Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> > > Index: flashrom-sb600spi_unneeded_struct/sb600spi.c > =================================================================== > --- flashrom-sb600spi_unneeded_struct/sb600spi.c (Revision 622) > +++ flashrom-sb600spi_unneeded_struct/sb600spi.c (Arbeitskopie) > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ > #include "flash.h" > #include "spi.h" > > +/* This struct is unused, but helps visualize the SB600 SPI BAR layout. */ > struct sb600_spi_controller { > unsigned int spi_cntrl0; /* 00h */ > unsigned int restrictedcmd1; /* 04h */ > @@ -36,7 +37,6 @@ > unsigned int spi_fakeid; /* 1Ch */ > }; > > -struct sb600_spi_controller *spi_bar = NULL; > uint8_t *sb600_spibar; > > int sb600_spi_read(struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, int start, int len) > @@ -111,8 +111,6 @@ > > writecnt--; > > - spi_bar = (struct sb600_spi_controller *) sb600_spibar; > - > printf_debug("%s, cmd=%x, writecnt=%x, readcnt=%x\n", > __func__, cmd, writecnt, readcnt); > > > > -- > http://www.hailfinger.org/ >
If this builds, then what can be wrong with this :) I guess you are keeping this struct because publically available documentation is perhaps not as clear as it should be? Why not comment it completely so that no-one else will complain about it in future? If it is a comment, people are more likely to leave it or scroll over it, if it remains a useless struct definition, then people will eventually stumble over it and try to remove it, and therefor possibly remove useful information. Please also make reset_internal_fifo_pointer and execute_command static so thatthese symbols, when unused, will turn up in the build as well. Apart from that, of course: Acked-by: Luc Verhaegen <[email protected]> Luc Verhaegen. -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
