From: josh.wu@atmel.com (Josh Wu)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: #if 0 out ISI code for AT91SAM9263
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 16:45:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <538EDC98.2080700@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1400845814.31526.29.camel@x220>
Hi, Paul
On 5/23/2014 7:50 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> In v2.6.25 code was added for an Image Sensor Interface (ISI) for
> AT91SAM9263. That code depended on the Kconfig macro
> CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI and its MODULE variant. The related Kconfig symbol
> has never been added to the tree. The net effect of this was that
> at91_add_device_isi() was a NOP. No one noticed because no callers of
> that function were added to the tree at that time.
>
> The first caller of a function with that name was added in v3.4. But
> that caller apparently only called the function defined for AT91SAM9G45.
> (that function was also added in v3.4). So even then AT91SAM9263's NOP
> version of at91_add_device_isi() remained unused.
>
> This means that the ISI code for AT91SAM9263 could be removed. But,
> since it can be useful for future reference, let's "#if 0" it instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
> ---
> v2: Jean-Christophe would like to keep the information currently hidden
> behind "#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI) [...]". I'd like the
> reference to that Kconfig macro dropped. Using "#if 0" will do both, so
> that makes for a nice compromise, I'd say.
I think we can keep the #if 0 as a reference so far. When the devices
file is finally removed. We will add the ISI resouces to DT file.
So I am ok with this.
Hi, J.C.
What do you think of this patch?
Best Regards,
Josh Wu
>
> Josh verified that this definition of at91_add_device_isi() never will
> be called. Thanks!
>
> Still untested!
>
> arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c
> index 43d53d6156dd..30af3048ade5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c
> @@ -900,8 +900,7 @@ void __init at91_add_device_lcdc(struct atmel_lcdfb_pdata *data) {}
> * Image Sensor Interface
> * -------------------------------------------------------------------- */
>
> -#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI) || defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI_MODULE)
> -
> +#if 0 /* keep for future reference */
> struct resource isi_resources[] = {
> [0] = {
> .start = AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI,
> @@ -947,9 +946,6 @@ void __init at91_add_device_isi(struct isi_platform_data *data,
> /* TODO: register the PCK for ISI_MCK and set its parent */
> }
> }
> -#else
> -void __init at91_add_device_isi(struct isi_platform_data *data,
> - bool use_pck_as_mck) {}
> #endif
>
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>,
Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: #if 0 out ISI code for AT91SAM9263
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 16:45:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <538EDC98.2080700@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1400845814.31526.29.camel@x220>
Hi, Paul
On 5/23/2014 7:50 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> In v2.6.25 code was added for an Image Sensor Interface (ISI) for
> AT91SAM9263. That code depended on the Kconfig macro
> CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI and its MODULE variant. The related Kconfig symbol
> has never been added to the tree. The net effect of this was that
> at91_add_device_isi() was a NOP. No one noticed because no callers of
> that function were added to the tree at that time.
>
> The first caller of a function with that name was added in v3.4. But
> that caller apparently only called the function defined for AT91SAM9G45.
> (that function was also added in v3.4). So even then AT91SAM9263's NOP
> version of at91_add_device_isi() remained unused.
>
> This means that the ISI code for AT91SAM9263 could be removed. But,
> since it can be useful for future reference, let's "#if 0" it instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
> ---
> v2: Jean-Christophe would like to keep the information currently hidden
> behind "#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI) [...]". I'd like the
> reference to that Kconfig macro dropped. Using "#if 0" will do both, so
> that makes for a nice compromise, I'd say.
I think we can keep the #if 0 as a reference so far. When the devices
file is finally removed. We will add the ISI resouces to DT file.
So I am ok with this.
Hi, J.C.
What do you think of this patch?
Best Regards,
Josh Wu
>
> Josh verified that this definition of at91_add_device_isi() never will
> be called. Thanks!
>
> Still untested!
>
> arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c
> index 43d53d6156dd..30af3048ade5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c
> @@ -900,8 +900,7 @@ void __init at91_add_device_lcdc(struct atmel_lcdfb_pdata *data) {}
> * Image Sensor Interface
> * -------------------------------------------------------------------- */
>
> -#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI) || defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI_MODULE)
> -
> +#if 0 /* keep for future reference */
> struct resource isi_resources[] = {
> [0] = {
> .start = AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI,
> @@ -947,9 +946,6 @@ void __init at91_add_device_isi(struct isi_platform_data *data,
> /* TODO: register the PCK for ISI_MCK and set its parent */
> }
> }
> -#else
> -void __init at91_add_device_isi(struct isi_platform_data *data,
> - bool use_pck_as_mck) {}
> #endif
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-04 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-15 8:34 [PATCH] ARM: at91: remove ISI code for AT91SAM9263 Paul Bolle
2014-05-15 8:34 ` Paul Bolle
2014-05-16 3:04 ` Josh Wu
2014-05-16 3:04 ` Josh Wu
2014-05-16 7:49 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2014-05-16 7:49 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2014-05-23 11:50 ` [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: #if 0 out " Paul Bolle
2014-05-23 11:50 ` Paul Bolle
2014-06-04 8:45 ` Josh Wu [this message]
2014-06-04 8:45 ` Josh Wu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=538EDC98.2080700@atmel.com \
--to=josh.wu@atmel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.