[PATCH 2/2] ARM: vexpress: Remove non-DT code

[lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)]

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 <pawel.moll@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  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.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog