On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:28:21PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> A test for CONFIG_SND_SOC_UX500_AB5500 was added in v3.5. But there
> never was a corresponding Kconfig symbol so this test has always
> evaluated to true. And since AB5500 support was removed in v3.5 it
> appears safe to remove this
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:28:21PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
A test for CONFIG_SND_SOC_UX500_AB5500 was added in v3.5. But there
never was a corresponding Kconfig symbol so this test has always
evaluated to true. And since AB5500 support was removed in v3.5 it
appears safe to remove this test
A test for CONFIG_SND_SOC_UX500_AB5500 was added in v3.5. But there
never was a corresponding Kconfig symbol so this test has always
evaluated to true. And since AB5500 support was removed in v3.5 it
appears safe to remove this test and a few lines of code.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle
---
A test for CONFIG_SND_SOC_UX500_AB5500 was added in v3.5. But there
never was a corresponding Kconfig symbol so this test has always
evaluated to true. And since AB5500 support was removed in v3.5 it
appears safe to remove this test and a few lines of code.
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle
4 matches
Mail list logo
