On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't like this change. It messes with the initialization sequence, >> which is not a good thing. Instead of shift more and more things >> backwards, we should fix any incorrect clock calculations here. > > Right however the clock calculation is right but in regular > initialization sequence this information is printed too early so Fabio > has moved it here to change this ordering. > > I agree it is not the best solution but a comment here makes it clear > why this has been done.
I don't think I was clear. I advocate the inclusion of this comment. I was temped to drop this method and Fabio explained why it was need. A day after, Ashok Kumar Reddy kourla (message id <[email protected]>) sent a patch to drop it too. So it is clear this needs a comment on code to avoid wasting people time trying to remove it. I agree we can work in a way to remove this duplication but let's get this patch in and later we can clean it. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
