[PATCH] ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs

[PATCH] ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs

[Boris Brezillon]

Commits bcf8c7e7703bb2bbde66bec26a81fed4be9cd1d4 and
4bf7753b8ab7c704ca864b1653367ea9cfe68a25 introduced compilation errors
("error: 'NR_IRQS_LEGACY' undeclared (first use in this function)") because
they remove the asm/irq.h inclusion while the init_time function needs it
for the NR_IRQS_LEGACY definition.

In the other hand, the point of these commits is to remove board file
support, and init_time is only needed when booting non-DT boards, we can
thus safely remove init_time functions.

Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
---
Hi Olof,

You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of
those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing
compilation errors.
This patch fixes those compilation errors.

Best Regards,

Boris

 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c | 6 ------
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c  | 6 ------
 2 files changed, 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c
index dd03f65..2ad0db4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c
@@ -34,13 +34,7 @@ static void __init at91sam9g45_initialize(void)
 	at91_sysirq_mask_rtt(AT91SAM9G45_BASE_RTT);
 }
 
-static void __init at91sam9g45_init_time(void)
-{
-	at91sam926x_pit_init(NR_IRQS_LEGACY + AT91_ID_SYS);
-}
-
 AT91_SOC_START(at91sam9g45)
 	.map_io = at91sam9g45_map_io,
 	.init = at91sam9g45_initialize,
-	.init_time = at91sam9g45_init_time,
 AT91_SOC_END
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c
index 6ca7fc5..bd7e568 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c
@@ -46,13 +46,7 @@ static void __init at91sam9rl_initialize(void)
 	at91_sysirq_mask_rtt(AT91SAM9RL_BASE_RTT);
 }
 
-static void __init at91sam9rl_init_time(void)
-{
-	at91sam926x_pit_init(NR_IRQS_LEGACY + AT91_ID_SYS);
-}
-
 AT91_SOC_START(at91sam9rl)
 	.map_io = at91sam9rl_map_io,
 	.init = at91sam9rl_initialize,
-	.init_time = at91sam9rl_init_time,
 AT91_SOC_END
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH] ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Olof,
> 
> You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of
> those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing
> compilation errors.
> This patch fixes those compilation errors.
> 

Applied on next/cleanup, thanks!

	Arnd

[PATCH] ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs

[Boris Brezillon]

Hi Arnd,

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:23:34 +0100
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

> On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Olof,
> > 
> > You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of
> > those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing
> > compilation errors.
> > This patch fixes those compilation errors.
> > 
> 
> Applied on next/cleanup, thanks!

Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof
had already fixed the initial compilation error.
This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h
inclusion.

[1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398

Best Regards,

Boris

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[PATCH] ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 20 November 2014 13:46:15 Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof
> had already fixed the initial compilation error.
> This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h
> inclusion.
> 
> [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398
> 

Sorry about this. Do you want to send an add-on patch to change that one
line, or should we just keep the current version?

	Arnd

[PATCH] ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 20/11/2014 13:46, Boris Brezillon :
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:23:34 +0100
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> 
>> On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> Hi Olof,
>>>
>>> You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of
>>> those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing
>>> compilation errors.
>>> This patch fixes those compilation errors.
>>>
>>
>> Applied on next/cleanup, thanks!
> 
> Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof
> had already fixed the initial compilation error.
> This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h
> inclusion.
> 
> [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398

And this v2 was included in the pull-request I made and that Arnd have
just taken (at91-cleanup2 tag).

It seems that the files still have the "#include <asm/irq.h>" in the
result branch.

So, Arnd can whether remove the following commit (in next/cleanup):
440ae45119e9 (ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs)
or we can add another patch just to remove these additional lines.

Arnd, what do you prefer?

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

[PATCH] ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 20 November 2014 14:32:29 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 20/11/2014 13:46, Boris Brezillon :
> > Hi Arnd,
> > 
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:23:34 +0100
> > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >>> Hi Olof,
> >>>
> >>> You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of
> >>> those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing
> >>> compilation errors.
> >>> This patch fixes those compilation errors.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Applied on next/cleanup, thanks!
> > 
> > Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof
> > had already fixed the initial compilation error.
> > This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h
> > inclusion.
> > 
> > [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398
> 
> And this v2 was included in the pull-request I made and that Arnd have
> just taken (at91-cleanup2 tag).
> 
> It seems that the files still have the "#include <asm/irq.h>" in the
> result branch.
> 
> So, Arnd can whether remove the following commit (in next/cleanup):
> 440ae45119e9 (ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs)
> or we can add another patch just to remove these additional lines.
> 
> Arnd, what do you prefer?

I don't want to change the merge I already did, so just send a patch
that I can apply on top.

	Arnd

[PATCH] ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 20/11/2014 16:26, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Thursday 20 November 2014 14:32:29 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> On 20/11/2014 13:46, Boris Brezillon :
>>> Hi Arnd,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:23:34 +0100
>>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>> Hi Olof,
>>>>>
>>>>> You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of
>>>>> those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing
>>>>> compilation errors.
>>>>> This patch fixes those compilation errors.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Applied on next/cleanup, thanks!
>>>
>>> Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof
>>> had already fixed the initial compilation error.
>>> This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h
>>> inclusion.
>>>
>>> [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398
>>
>> And this v2 was included in the pull-request I made and that Arnd have
>> just taken (at91-cleanup2 tag).
>>
>> It seems that the files still have the "#include <asm/irq.h>" in the
>> result branch.
>>
>> So, Arnd can whether remove the following commit (in next/cleanup):
>> 440ae45119e9 (ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs)
>> or we can add another patch just to remove these additional lines.
>>
>> Arnd, what do you prefer?
> 
> I don't want to change the merge I already did, so just send a patch
> that I can apply on top.

Sure I will.

I will then add it to my next "cleanup" pull-request to you.

Thanks for your help, bye.
-- 
Nicolas Ferre