On Sunday, December 04, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 11:31:07PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, December 03, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
The first patch in the series added the replacement as generic code,
this patch is deleting the shmobile specific
On Saturday, December 03, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 11:36:19PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, December 02, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
It saves source code size when we get the second user, by itself you're
right it doesn't achieve anything (except avoiding
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 11:31:07PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, December 03, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
The first patch in the series added the replacement as generic code,
this patch is deleting the shmobile specific implementation and using
the generic code instead.
No,
On Friday, December 02, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 09:37:07PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, December 01, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
Saves a tiny amount of code.
How so?
It saves source code size when we get the second user, by itself you're
right it
Saves a tiny amount of code.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
---
arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c | 43 +--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c
Hi,
On Thursday, December 01, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
Saves a tiny amount of code.
How so?
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
---
arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c | 43 +--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 09:37:07PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, December 01, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
Saves a tiny amount of code.
How so?
It saves source code size when we get the second user, by itself you're
right it doesn't achieve anything (except avoiding redundancy once
