From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrice Chotard Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] [RESEND] Remove STiH415 and STiH416 SoC platform support Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:04:25 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1473859677-9231-1-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> <7524458.uFhxDUCqEo@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7524458.uFhxDUCqEo@wuerfel> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann , Peter Griffin Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Peter, Arnd On 09/14/2016 03:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:27:38 PM CEST Peter Griffin wrote: >> Resending due to incorrect Cc tags. >> >> ST have sent patches which remove clock support for these SoCs [1] >> which once applied mean the platform will no longer boot. >> >> This series cleans up various STi platform drivers which have >> support for these SoC's, by removing code, and updating the DT >> documentation accordingly. Some drivers such as miphy365 and >> stih41x-usb can be removed completely because the IP is only >> found on these legacy SoC's. >> >> Once this series is applied, drm display driver, and ALSA SoC >> are the main two remaining references to the legacy SoCs, other >> than clocks which already have patches on the ML. > > It would be good to have a better explanation that "it's already > broken by some other commit". Is this a platform that never shipped > to end-users, or is it possible that someone out there actually > has a machine with one of these SoCs? This series is prematured as today STiH415/416 is not broken by any commit. This series is depending on the merge of a ST's clock series not yet upstreamed. (see https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9157571/) STMicroelectronics expect to remove STiH415/416 in a near future from upstream kernel. Patrice > > Arnd >