From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [ACPI] [2.6 patch] drivers/acpi: remove unused exported functions Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 22:26:46 +0100 Message-ID: <20041106212646.GO1295@stusta.de> References: <20041105215021.GF1295@stusta.de> <20041106203934.GA27251@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041106203934.GA27251@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: len.brown@intel.com, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:39:34PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 10:50:21PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > -acpi_status > > -acpi_install_gpe_block ( > > - acpi_handle gpe_device, > > - struct acpi_generic_address *gpe_block_address, > > - u32 register_count, > > - u32 interrupt_level); > > - > > -acpi_status > > -acpi_remove_gpe_block ( > > - acpi_handle gpe_device); > > - > > I just wrote a driver that uses these two. Probably best if you refer to > http://developer.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/downloads/ACPICA-ProgRef.pdf > before deleting "unused" functions as these are part of the published > interfaces that the ACPICA provides. If an in-kernel usage for some of the functions is coming soon simply ignore these parts of my patch. But if there's EXPORT_SYMBOL'ed code since nearly since nearly three years in the kernel that has like drivers/acpi/hardware/hwtimer.c exactly zero users, the only effect of this code is a code bloat for all users of ACPI. Prehaps #ifdef 0's are the best solution for published but unused interfaces? cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed