[U-Boot] [PATCH] driver/fsl_pci: Added fsl_pci_init_port function to initialize a single PCIe port.

[Aggrwal Poonam-B10812]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak at kernel.crashing.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:54 PM
> To: Wolfgang Denk
> Cc: Aggrwal Poonam-B10812; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] driver/fsl_pci: Added 
> fsl_pci_init_port function to initialize a single PCIe port.
> 
> 
> On Aug 20, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> 
> > Dear Poonam Aggrwal,
> >
> > In message 
> > <1250775038-20372-1-git-send-email-poonam.aggrwal at freescale.com
> > > you wrote:
> >> *  Added a generic function fsl_pci_init_port in drivers/pci/ 
> >> fsl_pci.c
> >>   to initialize a PCIe port.
> >> *  fsl_pci_init_port can be called from board specific pcie 
> >> initialization
> >>   routine, per-port.
> >> *  This will reduce the code redundancy in the most of the 
> Freescale 
> >> board
> >>   specific PCIe inits.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Poonam Aggrwal <poonam.aggrwal at freescale.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org>
> >> ---
> >
> > NAK.
> >
> > I see just dead code added, without any users.
> >
> > If this gets used somewhere, this should be visible in the 
> patch, and 
> > lead to code removed somewhere?
> 
> It gets used in the patch 'Added PCIe support for P1 P2 RDB'. 
>  I also will look at using it on other boards to remove code.
> 
> However I don't think we need one patch that adds the 
> interface and does the board code changes or additions 
> (unless you have to do them to keep compiling sane).
> 
> I agree this should have been label'd 1/2 and the 'Added PCIe 
> support for P1/P2 RDB' as 2/2.
> 
Yes my mistake here, I should have shown the patch dependancy.

> - k
> 
>