From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bo Shen Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:59:44 +0800 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] ATMEL/PIO: Enable new feature of PIO on Atmel device In-Reply-To: <4FB62BEC.6000007@gmail.com> References: <1337134587-3699-1-git-send-email-voice.shen@atmel.com> <4FB3847A.3000508@gmail.com> <4FB45206.8080103@atmel.com> <4FB62BEC.6000007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FB9D9D0.3010406@atmel.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Andreas, On 5/18/2012 19:01, Andreas Bie?mann wrote: > Dear Bo Shen, > > On 17.05.2012 03:19, Bo Shen wrote: >> On 5/16/2012 18:42, Andreas Bie?mann wrote: >>> Dear Bo Shen, >>> >>> On 16.05.2012 04:16, Bo Shen wrote: > > > >>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_AT91_LEGACY >>>> - > > > >>>> - >>> I think this should be done in a separate patch (series). There are a >>> lot of CONFIG_AT91_LEGACY left somewhere in the code. Please read >>> doc/README.at91-soc; I think step 4 is reached so step 5 should follow. >> >> Would this be dealt one by one, while not a series? > > Well it must not be a series of patches send at once. This can also be > done step by step e.g. by first cleaning up atmel_pio and doing other > parts later (I think this should/could be documented in the > doc/README.at91-soc). This should be carefully considered because you > may break some boards. > Beware! I do not really know if my statement 'step 4 of > doc/README.at91-soc is reached' is correct, so this needs to be proven. > If you have proven that removing legacy interface of atmel_pio is ok, I > would like to see another patch for that task (this patch is 'Enable new > feature ..' not 'remove legacy interface ..'). I will take this suggestion. Just add the new feature and do not touch with the legacy interface. The version 3 has been sent out. > > Some additional words on this part of the patch. I think (and this is my > personal view) we should not expand legacy interfaces at all, instead we > should try to remove them sooner rather than later. Additionally I think > (again my personal view) it is not your responsibility to clean this up > _now_ because you touch this file. In my opinion it is ok to just add > the new interface and leave the old one as is. > > Maybe someone else (Albert?) can comment on this? > > best regards > > Andreas Bie?mann