From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:26:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] ARM: shmobile: r8a7778: cleanup registration of sh_eth Message-Id: <51E7DEE9.8060208@cogentembedded.com> List-Id: References: <87li5dfqft.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> In-Reply-To: <87li5dfqft.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 18-07-2013 10:35, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: >> But is it really that much easier? >> Does this series remove all the other unused code from setup.c? >> Does it really matter if we forget to remove some bits of setup.c >> once they are unused? > The point is not "unused code", but "non-shared sharing code". > I guess people use copy-paste base development. > So, if we don't clean-up these "non-shared sharing code" now, > we will have more and more r8a77xx_add_xxx_device(pdata) type method > (which is the "non-shared sharing code" :) And that will teach them doing things the right, scalable way from the start. > in both board-xxx.c and setup-xxx.c before we have DT support. > This means clean-up these "after" DT support will be more complex. > I don't want this type of nightmare. And I don't want "SoC device in the board code" non-scalable nightmare when people will start producing their own boards based on Renesas SoCs. I don't want to give them the bad example that your USB code was before my 9-patch cleanup, and another several bad examples which you're now to trying to push into renesas.git. I don't want my efforts wasted. > Do you mean r8a7779 sh_eth clean-up code ? > If so, 1) I can't find "board" code which is using r8a7779_add_ether_device(xx), > 2) I guess marzen board doesn't have sh_eth HW implementation. It has several types of daughter boards with Ethernet PHY and connector. See my off-list email. > Best regards > --- > Kuninori Morimoto WBR, Sergei