[PATCH] 86xx: mark functions static, other minor cleanups

[Kumar Gala]

On Apr 15, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> In message: Re: [PATCH] 86xx: mark functions static, other minor  
> cleanups
> on 15/04/2008 Timur Tabi wrote:
>
>> Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>
>>> Valid point.  Is there a precedent here -- like a printk indicating
>>> that the old ID matched, to let the user know?
>>
>> Not really, but a pr_warning() would be nice.
>
> Done.
>
> I've also removed the sbc8641 content from this patch, and rolled it
> into the resend of those board specific patches.  This is now just for
> incorporating that same feedback into existing boards.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul.
> ---
>
> From aa2d1dd871c7eb440b3947cf8952d28249acf218 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker at windriver.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:51:04 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] 86xx: mark functions static, other minor cleanups
>
> Cleanups as suggested by Stephen Rothwell and Dale Farnsworth, which
> incudes marking a bunch of functions static and add a vendor prefix to
> the compat node check for uniqueness.  We match on the old compat node
> ID for one version and warn accordingly, so as to not plunge people
> into silent boot death, as suggested by Timur Tabi.

can you add a commit about the change to the root compatible and its  
eventual removal for backward compatibility.

- k