On 27/06/16 08:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.06.16 at 17:01, wrote:
>> On 07/06/16 07:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> - drop unused function parameter of read_dev_bar()
>>> - drop rom_init() (now identical to bar_init())
>>> - fold read_dev_bar() into its now single caller
>>> - simplify determinat
>>> On 24.06.16 at 17:01, wrote:
> On 07/06/16 07:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> - drop unused function parameter of read_dev_bar()
>> - drop rom_init() (now identical to bar_init())
>> - fold read_dev_bar() into its now single caller
>> - simplify determination of 64-bit memory resource
>> - use const
On 07/06/16 07:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> - drop unused function parameter of read_dev_bar()
> - drop rom_init() (now identical to bar_init())
> - fold read_dev_bar() into its now single caller
> - simplify determination of 64-bit memory resource
> - use const and unsigned
Please split this in 5 sep
On 06/07/2016 02:31 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> - drop unused function parameter of read_dev_bar()
> - drop rom_init() (now identical to bar_init())
> - fold read_dev_bar() into its now single caller
> - simplify determination of 64-bit memory resource
> - use const and unsigned
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan
- drop unused function parameter of read_dev_bar()
- drop rom_init() (now identical to bar_init())
- fold read_dev_bar() into its now single caller
- simplify determination of 64-bit memory resource
- use const and unsigned
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
v2: fold in 3rd patch and drop read_dev_ba
5 matches
Mail list logo