From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:37:03 +0000 Subject: [RFC PATCH] arm: cti: fix build for cti.h In-Reply-To: <1424326185-31463-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@opensource.altera.com> References: <1424326185-31463-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@opensource.altera.com> Message-ID: <20150220193702.GF1767@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 06:09:44AM +0000, dinguyen at opensource.altera.com wrote: > I would to like check to see if this is right thing to do for cti.h. Our > downstream kernel's PMU support is using cti.h. But I don't see any other > upstream driver using cti.h, so I'm not sure if this file should be removed? The file was originally added because there was some pending OMAP code to make use of it. However, then the upstream OMAP development more or less stopped and the follow-up patches never came. I'd vote for removing the file if it's not used in mainline. Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755395AbbBTThH (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:37:07 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58020 "EHLO usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752722AbbBTThF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:37:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:37:03 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: "dinguyen@opensource.altera.com" Cc: "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "dinh.linux@gmail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Pratik Patel , Mathieu Poirier , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm: cti: fix build for cti.h Message-ID: <20150220193702.GF1767@arm.com> References: <1424326185-31463-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@opensource.altera.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1424326185-31463-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@opensource.altera.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 06:09:44AM +0000, dinguyen@opensource.altera.com wrote: > I would to like check to see if this is right thing to do for cti.h. Our > downstream kernel's PMU support is using cti.h. But I don't see any other > upstream driver using cti.h, so I'm not sure if this file should be removed? The file was originally added because there was some pending OMAP code to make use of it. However, then the upstream OMAP development more or less stopped and the follow-up patches never came. I'd vote for removing the file if it's not used in mainline. Will