Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Revert "drivers/tty/serial: make 8250/8250_mtk.c explicitly non-modular"

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Thursday 11 February 2016 11:28:52 Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Revert "drivers/tty/serial: make 8250/8250_mtk.c explicitly non-modular"] On 11/02/2016 (Thu 17:06) Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 11 February 2016 11:00:22 Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > [[PATCH v2 1/6] Revert "drivers/tty/serial: make 8250/8250_mtk.c explicitly non-modular"] On 11/02/2016 (Thu 16:41) Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > 
> > > > This reverts commit d72d391c126e, which tried to remove dead code but
> > > > left the driver in a useless state when the main 8250 driver is a
> > > 
> > > Am I misunderstanding something?  The commit didn't cause the driver to
> > > be in a useless state for 8250=m.  But rather isn't that it was a
> > > pre-existing condition, independent of the change to 8250_mtk.c to
> > > remove the dead code in d72d391c126e?
> > > 
> > > Since the commit did not touch Kconfig or Makefile, I can't see how it
> > > could cause some new useless state that did not already exist, and hence
> > > the "Fixes:" tag is invalid as well.
> > 
> > My wording may have been bad here. What I meant to say is that it
> > was broken before the patch, and still broken after the patch.
> 
> OK, no problem. I just didn't want Greg/Jiri to think I was sending them
> broken commits.   Will need a v3 to get rid of the extra module.h
> anyway, so that gives you a chance to reword.

Sure.

> > 
> > The Fixes tag was meant to just be a reference to the commit I'm
> > reverting.
> 
> Yeah, but since the stable people trigger off of that, and since the
> revert doesn't really fix anything, that is probably best removed.
> The stable trees don't need the revert.

Yes, good point.

	Arnd