Re: [PATCH 01/11] Removing dead RT2800PCI_SOC

[Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>]

Am Freitag 16 Juli 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde:
> On 07/16/10 12:08, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Gertjan van Wingerde
> > <gwingerde@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/16/10 08:57, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com <mailto:bzolnier@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     On Wednesday 14 July 2010 04:44:44 pm Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >>>     > On 2010-07-14 3:15 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
> >>>     > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:52:14PM +0200, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:
> >>>     > >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Luis Correia <luis.f.correia@gmail.com <mailto:luis.f.correia@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>     > >> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 13:39, Christoph Egger <siccegge@cs.fau.de <mailto:siccegge@cs.fau.de>> wrote:
> >>>     > >> >> While RT2800PCI_SOC exists in Kconfig, it depends on either
> >>>     > >> >> RALINK_RT288X or RALINK_RT305X which are both not available in Kconfig
> >>>     > >> >> so all Code depending on that can't ever be selected and, if there's
> >>>     > >> >> no plan to add these options, should be cleaned up
> >>>     > >> >>
> >>>     > >> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Egger <siccegge@cs.fau.de <mailto:siccegge@cs.fau.de>>
> >>>     > >> >
> >>>     > >> > NAK,
> >>>     > >> >
> >>>     > >> > this is not dead code, it is needed for the Ralink System-on-Chip
> >>>     > >> > Platform devices.
> >>>     > >> >
> >>>     > >> > While I can't fix Kconfig errors and the current KConfig file may be
> >>>     > >> > wrong, this code cannot and will not be deleted.
> >>>     > >>
> >>>     > >> When the config option was introduced, the config options RALINK_RT288X and
> >>>     > >> RALINK_RT305X were supposed to be merged as well soon after by somebody (Felix?)
> >>>     > >>
> >>>     > >> But since testing is done on SoC boards by Helmut and Felix, I assume the code
> >>>     > >> isn't dead but actually in use.
> >>>     > >
> >>>     > > Perhaps Helmut and Felix can send us the missing code?
> >>>     > The missing code is a MIPS platform port, which is currently being
> >>>     > maintained in OpenWrt, but is not ready for upstream submission yet.
> >>>     > I'm not working on this code at the moment, but I think it will be
> >>>     > submitted once it's ready.
> >>>
> >>>     People are using automatic scripts to catch unused config options nowadays
> >>>     so the issue is quite likely to come back again sooner or later..
> >>>
> >>>     Would it be possible to improve situation somehow till the missing parts
> >>>     get merged?  Maybe by adding a tiny comment documenting RT2800PCI_SOC
> >>>     situation to Kconfig (if the config option itself really cannot be removed)
> >>>     until all code is ready etc.?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Or we could just remove RT2800PCI_SOC completely and build the soc specific
> >>> parts always as part of rt2800pci. I mean it's not much code, just the platform
> >>> driver stuff and the eeprom access.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if that is feasible. Sure, we can reduce the usage of the variable by
> >> unconditionally compiling in the generic SOC code, but we should not unconditionally
> >> register the SOC platform device, which is currently also under the scope of this
> >> Kconfig variable.
> > 
> > Ehm, no, the platform device is not registered in rt2800pci at all,
> > it's just the platform
> > driver that gets registered there. The platform device will be
> > registered in the according
> > board init code (that only resides in openwrt at the moment).
> > 
> 
> OK. Didn't know that. Sounds good then.
> 
> However, I've tried this in my local tree, and now compilation fails on the x86 platform
> due to a missing KSEG1ADDR macro. How do you suggest to handle the potentially missing
> macro?

We can convert it to an ioremap call, that should be available on all platforms.

Helmut