From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0236.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 168191A024E for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 04:43:09 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1401388979.6603.165.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pcmcia: m8xx: remove checks for four macros From: Scott Wood To: Paul Bolle Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:42:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1401388744.25908.16.camel@x220> References: <1400916970.31526.78.camel@x220> <1401387624.6603.161.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <1401388744.25908.16.camel@x220> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 20:39 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 13:20 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 09:36 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > This driver contains checks for four Kconfig macros. But the related > > > Kconfig symbols have never been part of the tree. Remove these checks > > > and the code they hide. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle > > > --- > > > Untested. > > > > > > This has been an issue ever since this driver was added in v2.6.15. Note > > > that there is no header named "*/cpld.h", so setting PRxK can't possibly > > > work. > > > > > > drivers/pcmcia/m8xx_pcmcia.c | 75 -------------------------------------------- > > > 1 file changed, 75 deletions(-) > > > > Does anything in this driver still work? It looks like bitrot from the > > arch/ppc days, that sort of got updated to use the device tree -- but > > even after this patch there are lots of instances of CONFIG symbols > > being used to assert the exact hardware being used, rather than what > > hardware is supported. > > I'm not sure I get what you're pointing at. Can you give one example? All the various stuff enabled by CONFIG_FADS, CONFIG_MPC885ADS, etc. such as the voltage_set() implementation. -Scott