[PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Andy Shevchenko]

The 'struct gpio' is not used in the code, remove unneeded forward declaration.
This seems to be a leftover for a 5 years.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1000.h | 2 --
 arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1300.h | 1 -
 2 files changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1000.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1000.h
index d820b481ac56..e6306f6820e6 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1000.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1000.h
@@ -40,8 +40,6 @@
 #define AU1000_GPIO2_INTENABLE	0x10
 #define AU1000_GPIO2_ENABLE	0x14
 
-struct gpio;
-
 static inline int au1000_gpio1_to_irq(int gpio)
 {
 	return MAKE_IRQ(1, gpio - ALCHEMY_GPIO1_BASE);
diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1300.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1300.h
index 43d44f384f97..b12f37262cfa 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1300.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-au1x00/gpio-au1300.h
@@ -12,7 +12,6 @@
 #include <asm/io.h>
 #include <asm/mach-au1x00/au1000.h>
 
-struct gpio;
 struct gpio_chip;
 
 /* with the current GPIC design, up to 128 GPIOs are possible.
-- 
2.47.2

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Andy Shevchenko]

+Cc: Bart.

On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:43:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The 'struct gpio' is not used in the code, remove unneeded forward declaration.
> This seems to be a leftover for a 5 years.

Any comments on this, please?

It prevents us from moving forward with the killing the GPIO legacy APIs
(it's not critical at all in this case, just an inconvenience for a `grep`,
but still...).

I think we can take it via GPIO tree if there is no reply.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Manuel Lauss]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:39 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> +Cc: Bart.
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:43:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The 'struct gpio' is not used in the code, remove unneeded forward declaration.
> > This seems to be a leftover for a 5 years.
>
> Any comments on this, please?

This is fine with me!

Manuel

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Thomas Bogendoerfer]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:39:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> +Cc: Bart.
> 
> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:43:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The 'struct gpio' is not used in the code, remove unneeded forward declaration.
> > This seems to be a leftover for a 5 years.
> 
> Any comments on this, please?

looks good

> It prevents us from moving forward with the killing the GPIO legacy APIs
> (it's not critical at all in this case, just an inconvenience for a `grep`,
> but still...).
> 
> I think we can take it via GPIO tree if there is no reply.

please do

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:31:33PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:39:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > +Cc: Bart.
> > 
> > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:43:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The 'struct gpio' is not used in the code, remove unneeded forward declaration.
> > > This seems to be a leftover for a 5 years.
> > 
> > Any comments on this, please?
> 
> looks good

Formal tag please?

> > It prevents us from moving forward with the killing the GPIO legacy APIs
> > (it's not critical at all in this case, just an inconvenience for a `grep`,
> > but still...).
> > 
> > I think we can take it via GPIO tree if there is no reply.
> 
> please do

Acked-by?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:29:43PM +0200, Manuel Lauss wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:39 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > +Cc: Bart.
> >
> > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:43:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The 'struct gpio' is not used in the code, remove unneeded forward declaration.
> > > This seems to be a leftover for a 5 years.
> >
> > Any comments on this, please?
> 
> This is fine with me!

Formal tag, please?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Thomas Bogendoerfer]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 03:49:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:31:33PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:39:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > +Cc: Bart.
> > > 
> > > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:43:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > The 'struct gpio' is not used in the code, remove unneeded forward declaration.
> > > > This seems to be a leftover for a 5 years.
> > > 
> > > Any comments on this, please?
> > 
> > looks good
> 
> Formal tag please?
> 
> > > It prevents us from moving forward with the killing the GPIO legacy APIs
> > > (it's not critical at all in this case, just an inconvenience for a `grep`,
> > > but still...).
> > > 
> > > I think we can take it via GPIO tree if there is no reply.
> > 
> > please do
> 
> Acked-by?

Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Andy Shevchenko]

Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 04:16:57PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer kirjoitti:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 03:49:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:31:33PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:39:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:43:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > I think we can take it via GPIO tree if there is no reply.
> > > 
> > > please do
> > 
> > Acked-by?
> 
> Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>

Thank you! Bart, seems we are all set to route this via GPIO tree. Do you have
any objections?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 12:52:18AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 04:16:57PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer kirjoitti:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 03:49:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:31:33PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:39:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:43:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > > I think we can take it via GPIO tree if there is no reply.
> > > > 
> > > > please do
> > > 
> > > Acked-by?
> > 
> > Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
> 
> Thank you! Bart, seems we are all set to route this via GPIO tree. Do you have
> any objections?

Bart, can you apply this one, please? Or do you have objections?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] MIPS: Alchemy: Remove unused forward declaration

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 05:01:28PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 12:52:18AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 04:16:57PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer kirjoitti:
> > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 03:49:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:31:33PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:39:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:43:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > > > I think we can take it via GPIO tree if there is no reply.
> > > > > 
> > > > > please do
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by?
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
> > 
> > Thank you! Bart, seems we are all set to route this via GPIO tree. Do you have
> > any objections?
> 
> Bart, can you apply this one, please? Or do you have objections?

Bart, you are pretty much active in the mailing list, but ignoring this thread.
Can you, please, shed a light on what's going on or what should I do?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko