[PATCH] at91: drop at91x40 support

[plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD)]

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<plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> >>>Cc: Andrew Victor<linux@maxim.org.za>
> >>>Cc: Nicolas Ferre<nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> >>>Cc: Greg Ungerer<gerg@snapgear.com>
> >>
> >>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
> 
> 
> >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


> 
> 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, no uart, no pio support, no watchdog supportm so tc support,
the CPU type is no even selected in the Kconfig

so yes the current implementation is not really usefull for anything

Best Regards,
J.