dos2unix

[Myles Watson]

In the spirit of trivial but large patches, here are two more.

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

Thanks,
Myles

[ron minnich]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> In the spirit of trivial but large patches, here are two more.
>
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

So we are down to zero targets using romcc?

The \r\n is a romcc artifact (not romcc, really, but the runtime for
romcc code).

ron

[Myles Watson]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:57 AM, ron minnich  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> > In the spirit of trivial but large patches, here are two more.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
>
> So we are down to zero targets using romcc?

OK it seemed trivial :)
> The \r\n is a romcc artifact (not romcc, really, but the runtime for
> romcc code).

Thanks,
Myles

[Corey Osgood]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:57 AM, ron minnich  wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> > > In the spirit of trivial but large patches, here are two more.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
> >
> > So we are down to zero targets using romcc?
>
> OK it seemed trivial :)

The v3 patch is fine though, it should be cleaned up.

Acked-by: Corey Osgood
> > The \r\n is a romcc artifact (not romcc, really, but the runtime for
> > romcc code).
>
> Thanks,
> Myles

[Myles Watson]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Corey Osgood  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:57 AM, ron minnich  wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> > > > In the spirit of trivial but large patches, here are two more.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
> > >
> > > So we are down to zero targets using romcc?
> >
> > OK it seemed trivial :)
>
> The v3 patch is fine though, it should be cleaned up.
>
> Acked-by: Corey Osgood

Rev 1130.

Thanks,
Myles

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 12.02.2009 18:54, Myles Watson wrote:
> In the spirit of trivial but large patches, here are two more.
>
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

AFAICS your change is safe for printk_*. Ron has a point about print_*
which is used in ROMCC compiled code.
By the way, there are lots of files which are not compiled with romcc
and still use print_* instead of printk_*.

Rule of thumb: All K8 targets and all GeodeLX targets should be free of
ROMCC compiled code.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 12.02.2009 20:23, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 12.02.2009 18:54, Myles Watson wrote:
> > In the spirit of trivial but large patches, here are two more.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
>
> AFAICS your change is safe for printk_*. Ron has a point about print_*
> which is used in ROMCC compiled code.
> By the way, there are lots of files which are not compiled with romcc
> and still use print_* instead of printk_*.
>
> Rule of thumb: All K8 targets and all GeodeLX targets should be free of
> ROMCC compiled code.

Let me rephrase that:
All K8 and GeodeLX targets are in need of a print_* -> printk_*
conversion. And printk_* does not need DOS line endings.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel