From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gerg@snapgear.com (Greg Ungerer) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:44:57 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] at91: drop at91x40 support In-Reply-To: <20100920063243.GA32018@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <1284790974-11143-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <4C94875B.3060200@snapgear.com> <20100918142857.GA12003@game.jcrosoft.org> <4C96F63A.2090704@snapgear.com> <20100920063243.GA32018@game.jcrosoft.org> Message-ID: <4C9702E9.8020500@snapgear.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 20/09/10 16:32, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 15:50 Mon 20 Sep , Greg Ungerer wrote: >> On 19/09/10 00:28, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >>> On 19:33 Sat 18 Sep , Greg Ungerer wrote: >>>> On 18/09/10 16:22, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >>>>> as it's broken for releases and no one care about it >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD >>>>> Cc: Andrew Victor >>>>> Cc: Nicolas Ferre >>>>> Cc: Greg Ungerer >>>> >>>> NAK, I care. I sent a fix to this very list about a week ago >>>> to fix the current compile problem. >>> sorry but not see it >> >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-September/025404.html >> >> >>> and I see it failled to build for at least 4 releases and >> >> And this is not really due to the board support code (which >> you propose to remove) at all. It is almost always due to >> breakage of something else. The patch I reference above is >> a good example. Breakage in the non-MMU support code is >> another example (and I have another patch I need to send to >> fix a problem there too). > which means no one test it or used it I have a patch for it. I tested it. I just didn't get around to sending the patch. My bad. I have had it sitting around for a while. It happens. >>> no debug-macro.S for years >>> since what 4 or 5 years we just have the timer and irq >> >> I don't follow. What is wrong with >> arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/debug-macro.S? > the at91x40 can not use it as it's not have DBGU support Yes, thats right. But it causes no problems. >> The AT91x40 parts are pretty simple, what else do you expect? >> >>> do you have plan to update it? >> >> I don't see anything to update. It does exactly what I want it to do. >> The board support code you point at causes me no troubles, and not >> very often do I need to fix/change/update it. > you have no flash, Uh? That doesn't need to go into the board support file. (And my use case doesn't use flash anyway). > no uart, no pio support, no watchdog supportm so tc support, I don't need or want most of those. If someone else needs them they can add them. > the CPU type is no even selected in the Kconfig What, you can't select "AT91x40" in menuconfig? > so yes the current implementation is not really usefull for anything I use it. I do my main work on non-MMU code on ARM using this base. It is very useful to me. Regards Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Greg Ungerer -- Principal Engineer EMAIL: gerg at snapgear.com SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 8 Gardner Close FAX: +61 7 3217 5323 Milton, QLD, 4064, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com