From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:36:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: at91: remove !DT support for at91rm9200 In-Reply-To: <27354361.uIQEXGDqXb@wuerfel> References: <3550407.q87bWB4Jdt@wuerfel> <20141127171243.GL4508@piout.net> <27354361.uIQEXGDqXb@wuerfel> Message-ID: <54784209.6070003@atmel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 27/11/2014 18:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 27 November 2014 18:12:43 Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> On 27/11/2014 at 17:49:50 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : >>> On Thursday 27 November 2014 17:06:28 Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>>> This is the last series of patches that removes the non-Device-Tree board >>>> support for older Atmel SoCs. >>>> Again, for the record, it was announced here >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/10/293 ([ANNOUNCE] ARM: at91: removal of board >>>> files) two months ago. >>>> Several files beyond at91rm9200 are touched this time as I tried to remove the >>>> biggest parts that were related to !DT SoC initializations. More cleanup is >>>> certainly needed to remove dead code. >>>> >>>> The diffstat is also pretty big as a lot of at91rm9200 boards were remaining. >>>> >>> >>> Awesome stuff! >>> >>> Two questions: >>> >>> - is anything holding this up from getting merged in 3.19? >>> >> >> If you think this is not too late in the cycle, I would say go ahead > > I'd say we should do it, unless there are last-minute regressions. Arnd, I am totally in favor for a merge into 3.19. I wanted to wait one day or two but given that the official announce had been made several months ago, I don't think it makes a big difference. So, what do you prefer: 1/ I wait today and send you the pull-request this evening (our time) 2/ I send you the pull-request at the beginning of next week but still can make it for 3.19? (BTW, in the meantime, there is a pending pull-request (at91-cleanup3) but it is true that you needn't pulling it in if you plan to take this one which will be named at91-cleanup4 and that will obviously contain the 3rd one). >>> - Are there any remaining issues that keep us from using multiplatform? >>> I know you all have been working on those a lot, but I haven't >>> checked what is still missing. >>> >> >> As discussed some weeks ago, I prepared patches to switch sama5d[3-4] to >> multiplatform. We are still missing the SMC and matrix drivers to switch >> sam9 and rm9200. >> >> The currently affected drivers are: >> - drivers/ata/pata_at91.c (SMC) >> - drivers/pcmcia/at91_cf.c (SMC) >> - drivers/usb/gadget/udc/at91_udc.c (Matrix, this is the only one >> for sam9) >> - sound/atmel/ac97c.c (that one is still not converted to DT anyway...) >> - drivers/watchdog/at91rm9200_wdt.c (WIP, will be converted properly to >> an MFD) >> >> I'll resume working on that in December. > > Ok, sounds great. > >> Do you want me to submit the sama5d[3-4] switch for 3.19? I'll have to >> rebase on that series. The main remaining issue is that I couldn't work >> out a way not breaking the defconfigs, even after talking with the >> Kconfig maintainer so doing first sama5 then sam9/rm9200 will break the >> defconfigs for sam9/rm9200 twice. > > Probably better to do all of mach-at91 at once for 3.20 so we don't break > anything trying to make both aproaches work together. Ok, let's schedule it for 3.20. Bye, -- Nicolas Ferre