[PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Russell King]

I hope there's no need to explain this in the email; if there is, the
entry isn't good enough. 8)

However, wouldn't it be a good idea if this file was ordered by "when" ?
A quick scan of the file reveals a couple of overdue/forgotten items
(maybe they happened but the entry in the file got missed?):

What:   ACPI S4bios support
When:   May 2005

What:   register_ioctl32_conversion() / unregister_ioctl32_conversion()
When:   April 2005


diff -up -x BitKeeper -x ChangeSet -x SCCS -x _xlk -x *.orig -x *.rej orig/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt linux/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
--- orig/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt	Sat May 28 20:58:15 2005
+++ linux/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt	Thu Jun 23 14:19:05 2005
@@ -83,3 +83,13 @@ Why:	Deprecated in favour of the new ioc
 	more efficient.  You should really be using libraw1394 for raw1394
 	access anyway.
 Who:	Jody McIntyre <scjody@steamballoon.com>
+
+---------------------------
+
+What:	register_serial/unregister_serial
+When:	December 2005
+Why:	This interface does not allow serial ports to be registered against
+	a struct device, and as such does not allow correct power management
+	of such ports.  8250-based ports should use serial8250_register_port
+	and serial8250_unregister_port instead.
+Who:	Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Andi Kleen]

> What:   register_ioctl32_conversion() / unregister_ioctl32_conversion()
> When:   April 2005

I already have a patch queued for that, will send soon.

-Andi

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
>...
> However, wouldn't it be a good idea if this file was ordered by "when" ?
> A quick scan of the file reveals a couple of overdue/forgotten items
> (maybe they happened but the entry in the file got missed?):
>...
> What:   register_ioctl32_conversion() / unregister_ioctl32_conversion()
> When:   April 2005
>...

The removal (including the removal of the feature-removal-schedule.txt 
entry) is already in -mm.

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: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Andi Kleen]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 04:03:16PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> >...
> > However, wouldn't it be a good idea if this file was ordered by "when" ?
> > A quick scan of the file reveals a couple of overdue/forgotten items
> > (maybe they happened but the entry in the file got missed?):
> >...
> > What:   register_ioctl32_conversion() / unregister_ioctl32_conversion()
> > When:   April 2005
> >...
> 
> The removal (including the removal of the feature-removal-schedule.txt 
> entry) is already in -mm.

Ok, but I hope whoever did that fixed the locking in the compat
path too. e.g. the BKL is not needed anymore.

-Andi

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Andrew Morton]

Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> >...
> > However, wouldn't it be a good idea if this file was ordered by "when" ?
> > A quick scan of the file reveals a couple of overdue/forgotten items
> > (maybe they happened but the entry in the file got missed?):
> >...
> > What:   register_ioctl32_conversion() / unregister_ioctl32_conversion()
> > When:   April 2005
> >...
> 
> The removal (including the removal of the feature-removal-schedule.txt 
> entry) is already in -mm.

Actually it has been temporarily removed because it has a dependency on
update-drm-ioctl-compatibility-to-new-world-order.patch which has a
dependency on David's DRM tree and I don't know how to get David's DRM tree
any more.  Hint.

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Dave Airlie]

>
> Actually it has been temporarily removed because it has a dependency on
> update-drm-ioctl-compatibility-to-new-world-order.patch which has a
> dependency on David's DRM tree and I don't know how to get David's DRM tree
> any more.  Hint.

I'll have a new DRM tree up in the next day or two, with it you can drop
that patch as I've folded it into my tree...

I'm still trying to get my head around the best workflow for git and me...

Dave.

-- 
David Airlie, Software Engineer
http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie
Linux kernel - DRI, VAX / pam_smb / ILUG

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Horst von Brand]

Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> >...
> > However, wouldn't it be a good idea if this file was ordered by "when" ?
> > A quick scan of the file reveals a couple of overdue/forgotten items
> > (maybe they happened but the entry in the file got missed?):
> >...
> > What:   register_ioctl32_conversion() / unregister_ioctl32_conversion()
> > When:   April 2005
> >...
> 
> The removal (including the removal of the feature-removal-schedule.txt 
> entry) is already in -mm.

Perhaps they should be moved to a REMOVED file, with the date (and version)
the patch went in? For future generations who wonder when something was
axed...
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> I hope there's no need to explain this in the email; if there is, the
> entry isn't good enough. 8)
> 
> However, wouldn't it be a good idea if this file was ordered by "when" ?
> A quick scan of the file reveals a couple of overdue/forgotten items
> (maybe they happened but the entry in the file got missed?):
> 
> What:   ACPI S4bios support
> When:   May 2005

ACPI S4bios will be killed "when convient" -- probably when we touch
/sys/power/* interface for another reason.

If there's pressure I can probably produce patch faster; I did not
forget, just S4bios did not get in my way *yet*.
							Pavel
-- 
Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java.

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Russell King]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> +What:	register_serial/unregister_serial
> +When:	December 2005
> +Why:	This interface does not allow serial ports to be registered against
> +	a struct device, and as such does not allow correct power management
> +	of such ports.  8250-based ports should use serial8250_register_port
> +	and serial8250_unregister_port instead.
> +Who:	Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>

Ok, now that this is in, I guess I should arrange for register_serial &
co to throw a compiler warning.  However, this is non-trivial because
several other drivers declare this function:

drivers/macintosh/macserial.c:int register_serial(struct serial_struct *req)
drivers/macintosh/macserial.c:void unregister_serial(int line)
drivers/serial/68328serial.c:int register_serial(struct serial_struct *req)
drivers/serial/68328serial.c:void unregister_serial(int line)
drivers/serial/crisv10.c:register_serial(struct serial_struct *req)
drivers/serial/crisv10.c:void unregister_serial(int line)

Can folk who look after these drivers please comment on why these
functions are there.


Other places appear to have a prototype for these functions but do not
use them:

arch/xtensa/platform-iss/console.c:int register_serial(struct serial_struct*);
arch/xtensa/platform-iss/console.c:void unregister_serial(int);
drivers/char/amiserial.c:int register_serial(struct serial_struct *req);
drivers/char/amiserial.c:void unregister_serial(int line);

The patch which follows this message will remove these.


In terms of the use of these functions, this is the state of play as of
yesterday:

arch/frv/kernel/setup.c://      register_serial(&__frv_uart0);
arch/frv/kernel/setup.c://      register_serial(&__frv_uart1);
drivers/char/mwave/mwavedd.c:   return register_serial(&serial);
drivers/char/mwave/mwavedd.c:           unregister_serial(pDrvData->sLine);
drivers/misc/ibmasm/uart.c:     sp->serial_line = register_serial(&serial);
drivers/misc/ibmasm/uart.c:     unregister_serial(sp->serial_line);
drivers/net/ioc3-eth.c: register_serial(&req);
drivers/net/ioc3-eth.c: register_serial(&req);
drivers/parport/parport_serial.c:               line = register_serial (&serial_req);
drivers/parport/parport_serial.c:               unregister_serial (priv->line[i]);
drivers/serial/bast_sio.c:      return register_serial(&serial_req);
drivers/serial/bast_sio.c:              unregister_serial(port[0]);
drivers/serial/bast_sio.c:              unregister_serial(port[1]);

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Russell King]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > +What:	register_serial/unregister_serial
> > +When:	December 2005
> > +Why:	This interface does not allow serial ports to be registered against
> > +	a struct device, and as such does not allow correct power management
> > +	of such ports.  8250-based ports should use serial8250_register_port
> > +	and serial8250_unregister_port instead.
> > +Who:	Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
> 
> Other places appear to have a prototype for these functions but do not
> use them:
> 
> arch/xtensa/platform-iss/console.c:int register_serial(struct serial_struct*);
> arch/xtensa/platform-iss/console.c:void unregister_serial(int);
> drivers/char/amiserial.c:int register_serial(struct serial_struct *req);
> drivers/char/amiserial.c:void unregister_serial(int line);
> 
> The patch which follows this message will remove these.
> 
> 
> In terms of the use of these functions, this is the state of play as of
> yesterday:
> 
> arch/frv/kernel/setup.c://      register_serial(&__frv_uart0);
> arch/frv/kernel/setup.c://      register_serial(&__frv_uart1);

I've also removed this.  The following is mostly for comment only.
I'm intending to commit this change by Monday at the latest.

[PATCH] Serial: remove unnecessary register_serial/unregister_serial

A couple of drivers declare register_serial/unregister_serial
prototypes but don't use them.  FRV contains a commented out
call to register_serial.  Since these are deprecated, remove
these unnecessary references.

Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

Index: arch/frv/kernel/setup.c
===================================================================
--- 39040c7a05edd69381c0a25636a1a328d856cb9c/arch/frv/kernel/setup.c  (mode:100644)
+++ uncommitted/arch/frv/kernel/setup.c  (mode:100644)
@@ -790,12 +790,10 @@
 #ifndef CONFIG_GDBSTUB_UART0
 	__reg(UART0_BASE + UART_IER * 8) = 0;
 	early_serial_setup(&__frv_uart0);
-//	register_serial(&__frv_uart0);
 #endif
 #ifndef CONFIG_GDBSTUB_UART1
 	__reg(UART1_BASE + UART_IER * 8) = 0;
 	early_serial_setup(&__frv_uart1);
-//	register_serial(&__frv_uart1);
 #endif
 
 #if defined(CONFIG_CHR_DEV_FLASH) || defined(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_FLASH)
Index: arch/xtensa/platform-iss/console.c
===================================================================
--- 39040c7a05edd69381c0a25636a1a328d856cb9c/arch/xtensa/platform-iss/console.c  (mode:100644)
+++ uncommitted/arch/xtensa/platform-iss/console.c  (mode:100644)
@@ -198,9 +198,6 @@
 }
 
 
-int register_serial(struct serial_struct*);
-void unregister_serial(int);
-
 static struct tty_operations serial_ops = {
 	.open = rs_open,
 	.close = rs_close,
Index: drivers/char/amiserial.c
===================================================================
--- 39040c7a05edd69381c0a25636a1a328d856cb9c/drivers/char/amiserial.c  (mode:100644)
+++ uncommitted/drivers/char/amiserial.c  (mode:100644)
@@ -1973,10 +1973,6 @@
 }
 
 
-int register_serial(struct serial_struct *req);
-void unregister_serial(int line);
-
-
 static struct tty_operations serial_ops = {
 	.open = rs_open,
 	.close = rs_close,


-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[David McCullough]

Jivin Russell King lays it down ...
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > +What:	register_serial/unregister_serial
> > +When:	December 2005
> > +Why:	This interface does not allow serial ports to be registered against
> > +	a struct device, and as such does not allow correct power management
> > +	of such ports.  8250-based ports should use serial8250_register_port
> > +	and serial8250_unregister_port instead.
> > +Who:	Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
> 
> Ok, now that this is in, I guess I should arrange for register_serial &
> co to throw a compiler warning.  However, this is non-trivial because
> several other drivers declare this function:

...

> drivers/serial/68328serial.c:int register_serial(struct serial_struct *req)
> drivers/serial/68328serial.c:void unregister_serial(int line)

These can go.  AFAICT they were never used and I have no idea why they
are there.

Cheers,
Davidm

-- 
David McCullough, davidm@snapgear.com  Ph:+61 7 34352815 http://www.SnapGear.com
Custom Embedded Solutions + Security   Fx:+61 7 38913630 http://www.uCdot.org

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Russell King]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:36:55AM +1000, David McCullough wrote:
> Jivin Russell King lays it down ...
> > drivers/serial/68328serial.c:int register_serial(struct serial_struct *req)
> > drivers/serial/68328serial.c:void unregister_serial(int line)
> 
> These can go.  AFAICT they were never used and I have no idea why they
> are there.

Thanks David.  I've just committed a patch to remove these.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Russell King]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> +
> +---------------------------
> +
> +What:	register_serial/unregister_serial
> +When:	December 2005
> +Why:	This interface does not allow serial ports to be registered against
> +	a struct device, and as such does not allow correct power management
> +	of such ports.  8250-based ports should use serial8250_register_port
> +	and serial8250_unregister_port instead.
> +Who:	Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>

I think it's about time to make the build a little more vocal about the
expiry of these functions.  Due to recent discussions with problems in
the console initialisation vs power manglement, I'd like to move the
date forward to September.

diff -up -x BitKeeper -x ChangeSet -x SCCS -x _xlk -x *.orig -x *.rej orig/include/linux/serial_core.h linux/include/linux/serial_core.h
--- orig/include/linux/serial_core.h	Sat May 28 20:58:34 2005
+++ linux/include/linux/serial_core.h	Thu Jul 14 16:54:36 2005
@@ -122,6 +122,7 @@
 #ifdef __KERNEL__
 
 #include <linux/config.h>
+#include <linux/compiler.h>
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/circ_buf.h>
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
@@ -359,8 +360,8 @@ struct tty_driver *uart_console_device(s
  */
 int uart_register_driver(struct uart_driver *uart);
 void uart_unregister_driver(struct uart_driver *uart);
-void uart_unregister_port(struct uart_driver *reg, int line);
-int uart_register_port(struct uart_driver *reg, struct uart_port *port);
+void __deprecated uart_unregister_port(struct uart_driver *reg, int line);
+int __deprecated uart_register_port(struct uart_driver *reg, struct uart_port *port);
 int uart_add_one_port(struct uart_driver *reg, struct uart_port *port);
 int uart_remove_one_port(struct uart_driver *reg, struct uart_port *port);
 int uart_match_port(struct uart_port *port1, struct uart_port *port2);
diff -up -x BitKeeper -x ChangeSet -x SCCS -x _xlk -x *.orig -x *.rej orig/include/linux/serial.h linux/include/linux/serial.h
--- orig/include/linux/serial.h	Fri Dec 10 11:25:30 2004
+++ linux/include/linux/serial.h	Thu Jul 14 17:24:38 2005
@@ -174,9 +174,11 @@ struct serial_icounter_struct {
 
 
 #ifdef __KERNEL__
+#include <linux/compiler.h>
+
 /* Export to allow PCMCIA to use this - Dave Hinds */
-extern int register_serial(struct serial_struct *req);
-extern void unregister_serial(int line);
+extern int __deprecated register_serial(struct serial_struct *req);
+extern void __deprecated unregister_serial(int line);
 
 /* Allow architectures to override entries in serial8250_ports[] at run time: */
 struct uart_port;	/* forward declaration */


-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Max Asbock]

On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:33, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > +
> > +---------------------------
> > +
> > +What:	register_serial/unregister_serial
> > +When:	December 2005
> > +Why:	This interface does not allow serial ports to be registered against
> > +	a struct device, and as such does not allow correct power management
> > +	of such ports.  8250-based ports should use serial8250_register_port
> > +	and serial8250_unregister_port instead.
> > +Who:	Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
> 
> I think it's about time to make the build a little more vocal about the
> expiry of these functions.  Due to recent discussions with problems in
> the console initialisation vs power manglement, I'd like to move the
> date forward to September.
> 

I am converting the ibmasm driver that uses (un)register_serial to use
serial_8250_(un)register_port. However I find function prototypes for
the new interfaces only in linux/drivers/char/8250.h. Is there a reason
there aren't any extern declarations for these functions in
linux/include/serial.h or linux/include/serial_8250.h?

thanks,
max

Re: [PATCH] Add removal schedule of register_serial/unregister_serial to appropriate file

[Russell King]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:30:34AM -0700, Max Asbock wrote:
> I am converting the ibmasm driver that uses (un)register_serial to use
> serial_8250_(un)register_port. However I find function prototypes for
> the new interfaces only in linux/drivers/char/8250.h. Is there a reason
> there aren't any extern declarations for these functions in
> linux/include/serial.h or linux/include/serial_8250.h?

Probably because nothing outside drivers/serial uses these functions at
the moment.

They could be moved to include/linux/serial_8250.h though.  Patch welcome.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core