From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pawel.moll@arm.com (Pawel Moll) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:46:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: vexpress: Remove non-DT code In-Reply-To: <20140917154212.GD30918@lee--X1> References: <1410359618-3441-1-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com> <1410359618-3441-2-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com> <20140916233020.GC30918@lee--X1> <1410965992.30394.6.camel@hornet> <20140917154212.GD30918@lee--X1> Message-ID: <1410968760.30394.7.camel@hornet> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 16:42 +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Pawel Moll wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 00:30 +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Pawel Moll wrote: > > > > > > > Now, with the CLCD DT support available, there is no > > > > more reason to keep the non-DT support for V2P-CA9. > > > > > > > > Removed, together with "some" supporting code. It was > > > > necessary to make PLAT_VERSATILE_SCHED_CLOCK optional > > > > and selected by the machines still interested in it. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pawel Moll > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/Kconfig | 2 + > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/Kconfig | 3 - > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/Makefile | 3 +- > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/core.h | 7 - > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/ct-ca9x4.c | 212 ------------ > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/include/mach/ct-ca9x4.h | 47 --- > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/include/mach/hardware.h | 1 - > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/include/mach/irqs.h | 6 - > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/include/mach/motherboard.h | 88 ----- > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/platsmp.c | 42 --- > > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/v2m.c | 374 ---------------------- > > > > arch/arm/plat-versatile/Kconfig | 2 +- > > > > drivers/clk/versatile/Makefile | 1 - > > > > drivers/clk/versatile/clk-vexpress-osc.c | 7 - > > > > drivers/clk/versatile/clk-vexpress.c | 86 ----- > > > > drivers/mfd/vexpress-sysreg.c | 71 +--- > > > > drivers/misc/vexpress-syscfg.c | 60 +--- > > > > drivers/power/reset/vexpress-poweroff.c | 17 +- > > > > include/linux/vexpress.h | 19 -- > > > > 19 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 1013 deletions(-) > > > > delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-vexpress/ct-ca9x4.c > > > > delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-vexpress/include/mach/ct-ca9x4.h > > > > delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-vexpress/include/mach/hardware.h > > > > delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-vexpress/include/mach/irqs.h > > > > delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-vexpress/include/mach/motherboard.h > > > > delete mode 100644 drivers/clk/versatile/clk-vexpress.c > > > > > > Is it really necessary to take the one-big-patch approach? I'm sure > > > you can find a nicer way than to burden all these maintainers. > > > Naturally I can't speak for everyone concerned, but I don't really > > > want to be carrying all this if I don't have to. Granted I'm not > > > carrying any patches touching drivers/mfd/vexpress-sysreg.c at the > > > moment, but equally I don't want to rule that out. > > > > I feel that getting all this stuff done (notice: no new features, just > > removing existing stuff) was the simplest approach, without having to > > rely on patches being merged in particular order. > > > > Besides, there are three things there that are not directly maintained > > by the arm-soc folk: clk (already acked by Mike), mfd (you) and > > power/reset. So I thought that gathering acks for those and getting it > > merged via arm-soc would be the simplest approach... > > It's certainly the easiest approach for you, but it makes things > difficult for the maintainers as it would entail all 4 entities > carrying the patch. The alternative is to hope there won't be any > subsequent changes to the files in our respective subsystems which > might cause conflicts. I'm not keen on the latter idea. No problem, I will factor out the mfd and reset stuff and post it separately after the main changes are merged. Pawel