get_fx_devs

[Myles Watson]

get_fx_devs() was called very few places, and it wasn't needed except the
first call.  I combined them.

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

Thanks,
Myles

[Myles Watson]

Something I noticed after I sent the patch is that this code (with or
without my patch) depends on the pointers being initialized to zero.  Is
that a valid assumption with gcc?

Thanks,
Myles

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Myles Watson  wrote:
> get_fx_devs() was called very few places, and it wasn't needed except the
> first call.  I combined them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
>
> Thanks,
> Myles

[Marc Jones]

Myles Watson wrote:
> get_fx_devs() was called very few places, and it wasn't needed except 
> the first call.  I combined them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[e-mail] >

Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Marc Jones

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:57 AM
> To: Myles Watson
> Cc: Coreboot
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] get_fx_devs
>
> Myles Watson wrote:
> > get_fx_devs() was called very few places, and it wasn't needed except
> > the first call.  I combined them.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[e-mail]
>
> >
> >
>
> Looks good to me.
> Acked-by: Marc Jones

I think I confused myself and had two outstanding patches for the same code.
This was already applied.

Thanks,
Myles

[Marc Jones]

Myles Watson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:57 AM
> > To: Myles Watson
> > Cc: Coreboot
> > Subject: Re: [coreboot] get_fx_devs
> >
> > Myles Watson wrote:
> > > get_fx_devs() was called very few places, and it wasn't needed except
> > > the first call.  I combined them.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[e-mail]
> >
> > >
> >
> > Looks good to me.
> > Acked-by: Marc Jones
>
> I think I confused myself and had two outstanding patches for the same code.
> This was already applied.
>
> Thanks,
> Myles

OK, just making sure. The code looked fine.
Marc