[PATCH 4/7] at91: remove non used at91_spi.h

[plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD)]

On 18:44 Fri 15 Jul     , Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> On 07/15/11 17:46, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> >On 13:47 Fri 15 Jul     , Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> >>Sorry, I couldn't find a summary message for this patch series,
> >>so I picked this one to reply, because this one hurts me most.
> >>
> >>On 07/15/11 01:52, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> >>>Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD<plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> >>>Cc: Nicolas Ferre<nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> >>>---
> >>>   arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_spi.h |   81
> >>----------------------------
> >>>   1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> >>>   delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_spi.h
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>First, I'm actually using mach/at91_spi.h in an SPI slave driver.
> >>And I'm using arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_spi.h instead of
> >>drivers/spi/atmel_spi.h (which still exists in the kernel version
> >>we use here), because arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_spi.h
> >>is accessible from an out-of-tree driver w/o extra effort.
> >>
> >>And this applies to all all of those header files, so I'm
> >>really against all patches in this series.
> >You need the use SPI framework for this
> I think you reply here to the wrong part of my message.
> This part here is about the whole patch series, as I didn't
> get a summary message for the patch series.
> 
> About the SPI driver:
> From Documentation/spi/spi-summary:
> "At this writing, Linux has no slave side programming interface."
> So there's no SPI framwork that covers the slave side.
This what I mean use the SPI framework and add the SPI Slave support there
> 
> >Out of tree driver is not enough good reason to keep it
> As there's currently no slave support in-tree, any Linux device
> that's an SPI slave needs an out-of-tree driver.
> 
> And again, there's no rationale given for moving all the other
> headers from an genarally accessible place to a generally
> inaccessible place, so I'm still against the whole patch series.
those information are driver and IP related keep them in the
arch/arm/mach-at91 make those driver difficult to share cross arch

for the SPI this IP is shared between avr2 and arm so keep it in arch is not
acceptable at all

So if you want to add the SPI Slave support you must make is available for
both ARCH

so NACK to keep this one and the drivers/spi/atmel_spi.h and
arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_spi.h contain the same information

so we drop the one not used

Best Regards,
J.