[2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN and remove broken MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS drivers

[2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN and remove broken MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS drivers

[Adrian Bunk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1118 bytes --]

MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS shouldn't be marked as BROKEN.

This patch brings the MTD_SHARP driver back into life and removes the 
non-compiling MTD_AMDSTD and MTD_JEDEC with everything depending on 
them.


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

---

This patch was already sent on:
- 6 Jan 2006
- 13 Dec 2005

Due to it's size, the patch is attached gzip'ed.

 arch/cris/arch-v10/drivers/Kconfig        |    1 
 arch/cris/arch-v10/drivers/axisflashmap.c |    3 
 arch/cris/arch-v32/drivers/Kconfig        |    1 
 arch/cris/arch-v32/drivers/axisflashmap.c |    3 
 drivers/mtd/chips/Kconfig                 |   22 
 drivers/mtd/chips/Makefile                |    2 
 drivers/mtd/chips/amd_flash.c             | 1403 ----------------------
 drivers/mtd/chips/jedec.c                 |  935 --------------
 drivers/mtd/maps/Kconfig                  |   18 
 drivers/mtd/maps/Makefile                 |    2 
 drivers/mtd/maps/octagon-5066.c           |  248 ---
 drivers/mtd/maps/vmax301.c                |  198 ---
 include/linux/mtd/jedec.h                 |   66 -
 13 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2901 deletions(-)

[-- Attachment #2: patch-MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS.gz --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 19885 bytes --]

Re: [2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN and remove broken MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS drivers

[David Woodhouse]

On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 23:07 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch brings the MTD_SHARP driver back into life and removes the 
> non-compiling MTD_AMDSTD and MTD_JEDEC with everything depending on 
> them.

Please provide further background on your reasoning. I'll enumerate my
questions to make it easy for you to answer each one fully.

1. Precisely when were these chip drivers marked obsolete?

2. What was the reason for marking them obsolete?

3. What are the factors which led you to conclude that _now_ is the time
to actually remove them?

4. What are the factors which led you to _remove_ the map drivers which
currently use the obsolete chip drivers, rather than taking the obvious
alternative solution for those map drivers?

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN and remove broken MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS drivers

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 12:00:09AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 23:07 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This patch brings the MTD_SHARP driver back into life and removes the 
> > non-compiling MTD_AMDSTD and MTD_JEDEC with everything depending on 
> > them.
> 
> Please provide further background on your reasoning. I'll enumerate my
> questions to make it easy for you to answer each one fully.
> 
> 1. Precisely when were these chip drivers marked obsolete?

Since kernel 2.4.11-pre4, released Thu, 4 Oct 2001 20:47:23 -0700.

> 2. What was the reason for marking them obsolete?

The changelog says:
 - David Woodhouse: large MTD and JFFS[2] update

> 3. What are the factors which led you to conclude that _now_ is the time
> to actually remove them?

http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/12/43

> 4. What are the factors which led you to _remove_ the map drivers which
> currently use the obsolete chip drivers, rather than taking the obvious
> alternative solution for those map drivers?

It seems that for one and a half years noone considered it a problem 
that they were no longer available...

> dwmw2

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: [2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN and remove broken MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS drivers

[David Woodhouse]

On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 01:24 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 1. Precisely when were these chip drivers marked obsolete?
> 
> Since kernel 2.4.11-pre4, released Thu, 4 Oct 2001 20:47:23 -0700.

Good. That's when they were first marked 'theoretically obsolete', at
least. Now, when did they _actually_ become obsolete, and why?

> > 2. What was the reason for marking them obsolete?
> 
> The changelog says:
>  - David Woodhouse: large MTD and JFFS[2] update

I didn't ask who; I knew that. I asked you _why_. Admittedly, I happen
to know that too - but I want to know if _you_ know it.

Since you've taken it upon yourself to decide the timescale of the
removal, surely it's reasonable to expect that you do actually know what
you're removing and why it's obsolescent?

> > 3. What are the factors which led you to conclude that _now_ is the time
> > to actually remove them?
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/12/43

That's also an insufficient answer. Why now? What are the factors you
weighed up in favour of removal, and against it? I assume you gave it
some serious consideration?

> > 4. What are the factors which led you to _remove_ the map drivers which
> > currently use the obsolete chip drivers, rather than taking the obvious
> > alternative solution for those map drivers?
> 
> It seems that for one and a half years noone considered it a problem 
> that they were no longer available...

Even if the chip drivers in question really been unavailable for that
period of time, rather than merely hidden behind an extra config option
-- people with embedded systems are often slow to update. That isn't
really sufficient reason for removing those map drivers rather than
taking the obvious alternative solution. You do know enough about the
code you're changing to know what that alternative solution is, right?
 
-- 
dwmw2

Re: [2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN and remove broken MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS drivers

[Andrew Morton]

David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > 2. What was the reason for marking them obsolete?
>  > 
>  > The changelog says:
>  >  - David Woodhouse: large MTD and JFFS[2] update
> 
>  I didn't ask who; I knew that. I asked you _why_. Admittedly, I happen
>  to know that too - but I want to know if _you_ know it.
> 
>  Since you've taken it upon yourself to decide the timescale of the
>  removal, surely it's reasonable to expect that you do actually know what
>  you're removing and why it's obsolescent?
>

Hey, Adrian isn't an MTD developer - give him a break.

What he's doing here is to poke other maintainers into getting the tree
cleaned up.  It's a useful thing to do.

If you, an MTD maintainer, can tell him what we _should_ be doing, I'm sure
Adrian would help.

Re: [2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN and remove broken MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS drivers

[David Woodhouse]

On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 17:45 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Hey, Adrian isn't an MTD developer

Indeed he is not. And while his minor nitpicks can sometimes be worth
the effort, it's less useful for him to start making value judgements
about removing drivers which have _theoretically_ been replaced by new
code, but which are actually still being used in some cases.

> What he's doing here is to poke other maintainers into getting the tree
> cleaned up.  It's a useful thing to do.

I know what needs doing to clean the tree up -- and removing the older
chip drivers is very far from the top of my todo list. If you really
want to accelerate their demise, add a #warning and a printk saying "You
should no longer be using this driver -- try using jedec_probe or
cfi_probe instead and contact the linux-mtd list if that fails". 

> If you, an MTD maintainer, can tell him what we _should_ be doing, I'm sure
> Adrian would help.

That would be much appreciated -- and _useful_. We need to add sysfs
support to MTD devices, we need to revamp the way that the chip probe
code hands off to the back-end chip drivers, and in doing so get rid of
the use of inter_module_crap(), and we need to audit the module
refcounting while we're at it.

I'm hoping I'll get a week or two some time soon to sit down and
actually concentrate on that, because it's not something I can really
pick at piecemeal and it wants proper testing. But if Adrian wants to
have a go, that would be wonderful.

But picking away at what looks like low-hanging fruit without a real
understanding of what's going on doesn't really help much.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN and remove broken MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS drivers

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 12:41:12PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 17:45 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Hey, Adrian isn't an MTD developer
> 
> Indeed he is not. And while his minor nitpicks can sometimes be worth
> the effort, it's less useful for him to start making value judgements
> about removing drivers which have _theoretically_ been replaced by new
> code, but which are actually still being used in some cases.

I interpreted your "or just removed" in [1] as your approval for a patch 
to remove the non-compiling drivers.

I'm not a native English speaker, and therefore I might have 
misunderstood your email.

What I want for 2.6.16 is to remove the wrong dependency of MTD_SHARP on 
BROKEN and the non-compiling drivers either still hidden under BROKEN or 
removed.

If there is any way I can submit a patch achieving this that would be 
acceptable for you simply tell how exactly you want this patch.

> > What he's doing here is to poke other maintainers into getting the tree
> > cleaned up.  It's a useful thing to do.
> 
> I know what needs doing to clean the tree up -- and removing the older
> chip drivers is very far from the top of my todo list. If you really
> want to accelerate their demise, add a #warning and a printk saying "You
> should no longer be using this driver -- try using jedec_probe or
> cfi_probe instead and contact the linux-mtd list if that fails". 
>...

We are talking about drivers marked as BROKEN for one and a half years 
that do no longer compile.

> dwmw2

cu
Adrian

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/12/43

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: [2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN and remove broken MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS drivers

[David Woodhouse]

On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 13:57 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> What I want for 2.6.16 is to remove the wrong dependency of MTD_SHARP on 
> BROKEN and the non-compiling drivers either still hidden under BROKEN or 
> removed.
> 
> If there is any way I can submit a patch achieving this that would be 
> acceptable for you simply tell how exactly you want this patch.

Remove the incorrect BROKEN dependency from MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS.

If you then want to add it again to any chip driver which really doesn't
compile, feel free. But leave the map drivers alone. Those can be
switched to use different chip back-ends. 

-- 
dwmw2

[2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 01:06:20PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 13:57 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > What I want for 2.6.16 is to remove the wrong dependency of MTD_SHARP on 
> > BROKEN and the non-compiling drivers either still hidden under BROKEN or 
> > removed.
> > 
> > If there is any way I can submit a patch achieving this that would be 
> > acceptable for you simply tell how exactly you want this patch.
> 
> Remove the incorrect BROKEN dependency from MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS.
> 
> If you then want to add it again to any chip driver which really doesn't
> compile, feel free. But leave the map drivers alone. Those can be
> switched to use different chip back-ends. 

Patch below.

> dwmw2

cu
Adrian


<--  snip  -->


This patch removes the wrong dependency of MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS on BROKEN 
and marks the non-compiling MTD_AMDSTD and MTD_JEDEC drivers as BROKEN.


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

---

 drivers/mtd/chips/Kconfig |    6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- linux-2.6.15-mm2-full/drivers/mtd/chips/Kconfig.old	2006-01-08 14:16:59.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.15-mm2-full/drivers/mtd/chips/Kconfig	2006-01-08 14:17:25.000000000 +0100
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@
 	  with this driver will return -ENODEV upon access.
 
 config MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS
-	depends on MTD && BROKEN
+	depends on MTD
 	bool "Older (theoretically obsoleted now) drivers for non-CFI chips"
 	help
 	  This option does not enable any code directly, but will allow you to
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@
 
 config MTD_AMDSTD
 	tristate "AMD compatible flash chip support (non-CFI)"
-	depends on MTD && MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS
+	depends on MTD && MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS && BROKEN
 	help
 	  This option enables support for flash chips using AMD-compatible
 	  commands, including some which are not CFI-compatible and hence
@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@
 
 config MTD_JEDEC
 	tristate "JEDEC device support"
-	depends on MTD && MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS
+	depends on MTD && MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS && BROKEN
 	help
 	  Enable older older JEDEC flash interface devices for self
 	  programming flash.  It is commonly used in older AMD chips.  It is

Re: [2.6 patch] no longer mark MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS as BROKEN

[David Woodhouse]

On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 15:14 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch removes the wrong dependency of MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS on BROKEN 
> and marks the non-compiling MTD_AMDSTD and MTD_JEDEC drivers as BROKEN.

Looks better; thanks.

> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>

-- 
dwmw2