Re: [PATCH 01/10] mfd/extcon: max77693: Remove unused extern declarations and max77693_dev members

[Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>]

On 05/04/2015 03:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozłowski wrote:
> 2015-05-04 15:45 GMT+09:00 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>:
>> On 04/29/2015 07:58 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Clean up the max77693 private header file by removing:
>>> 1. Left-overs from previous way of interrupt handling (driver uses
>>>    regmap_irq_chip).
>>> 2. Unused members of struct 'max77693_dev' related to interrupts in
>>>    extcon driver.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c     | 4 ----
>>>  include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 8 --------
>>>  2 files changed, 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c
>>> index a66bec8f6252..760e1e2cc1ce 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max77693.c
>>> @@ -1218,10 +1218,6 @@ static int max77693_muic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>                       irq_src = MUIC_INT3;
>>>                       break;
>>>               }
>>> -
>>> -             if (irq_src < MAX77693_IRQ_GROUP_NR)
>>> -                     info->max77693->irq_masks_cur[irq_src]
>>> -                             = init_data[i].data;
>>>       }
>>
>> When removing the unused statement, I think you better to remove it as following:
>> because 'enum max77693_irq_source irq_src' is not used.
> 
> Yes, you're right. Actually some time ago I removed all of this:
> extcon: max77693: Remove left-over code after switching to regmap irq chip
> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1410.2/03403.html
> 
>>
>>         for (i = 0; i < num_init_data; i++) {
>> -               enum max77693_irq_source irq_src
>> -                               = MAX77693_IRQ_GROUP_NR;
>> -
>>                 regmap_write(info->max77693->regmap_muic,
>>                                 init_data[i].addr,
>>                                 init_data[i].data);
>> -
>> -               switch (init_data[i].addr) {
>> -               case MAX77693_MUIC_REG_INTMASK1:
>> -                       irq_src = MUIC_INT1;
>> -                       break;
>> -               case MAX77693_MUIC_REG_INTMASK2:
>> -                       irq_src = MUIC_INT2;
>> -                       break;
>> -               case MAX77693_MUIC_REG_INTMASK3:
>> -                       irq_src = MUIC_INT3;
>> -                       break;
>> -               }
>> -
>> -               if (irq_src < MAX77693_IRQ_GROUP_NR)
>> -                       info->max77693->irq_masks_cur[irq_src]
>> -                               = init_data[i].data;
>>         }
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Except for upper comment, Looks good to me.
> 
> Okay, I'll do as you suggested and add your ack (in case it will go
> through some other tree).

I'm wondering the merge confilct if this patch will be merged on other tree.
Because extcon-max77693.c was already modified on extcon-next branch.

So, If the base commit of this patch is different, there are potential merge conflict.

Thanks,
Chanwoo Choi