[U-Boot] is CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT actually being used anywhere?

[U-Boot] is CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT actually being used anywhere?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  never afraid to embarrass myself, is the config option
CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT actually doing anything useful?

$ grep -r MMC_SELECT *
board/atmel/at91rm9200dk/Makefile:COBJS-$(CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT) += mux.o
board/atmel/at91rm9200ek/Makefile:COBJS-$(CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT) += mux.o
CHANGELOG:    at91: rename DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT to CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT
common/Makefile:COBJS-$(CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT) += cmd_dataflash_mmc_mux.o
include/at45.h:#ifdef	CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT
$

  i can see the commit that did a rename:

commit 90a92a708d5180a20d600ba0fc2352ec76dc3829
Author: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
Date:   Fri Mar 27 23:26:42 2009 +0100

    at91: rename DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT to CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT

    Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>

but unless *someone* defines that macro, is it doing anything useful?
or am i just confused?

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

            Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================

[U-Boot] is CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT actually being used anywhere?

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear "Robert P. J. Day",

In message <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911180156580.16276@localhost> you wrote:
> 
>   never afraid to embarrass myself, is the config option
> CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT actually doing anything useful?

Not in any mainline code, it seems.

>   i can see the commit that did a rename:
> 
> commit 90a92a708d5180a20d600ba0fc2352ec76dc3829
> Author: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> Date:   Fri Mar 27 23:26:42 2009 +0100
> 
>     at91: rename DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT to CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> 
> but unless *someone* defines that macro, is it doing anything useful?
> or am i just confused?

Eventually JC had some patches on his famous stack before he threw in
the towel.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
I will not say that women have no character;  rather, they have a new
one every day.                                               -- Heine

[U-Boot] is CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT actually being used anywhere?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> Dear "Robert P. J. Day",
>
> In message <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911180156580.16276@localhost> you wrote:
> >
> >   never afraid to embarrass myself, is the config option
> > CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT actually doing anything useful?
>
> Not in any mainline code, it seems.

  i didn't think so, just wanted to make sure.

> >   i can see the commit that did a rename:
> >
> > commit 90a92a708d5180a20d600ba0fc2352ec76dc3829
> > Author: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> > Date:   Fri Mar 27 23:26:42 2009 +0100
> >
> >     at91: rename DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT to CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT
> >
> >     Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> >
> > but unless *someone* defines that macro, is it doing anything
> > useful? or am i just confused?
>
> Eventually JC had some patches on his famous stack before he threw
> in the towel.

  so does that mean that DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT-related content can be
removed -- at least for now until someone else comes along and tries
to put it back and make it useful?   obviously, it's not doing any
actual harm being there, it just has no value.  at the moment:

$ grep -r DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT *
board/atmel/at91rm9200dk/Makefile:COBJS-$(CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT) += mux.o
board/atmel/at91rm9200ek/Makefile:COBJS-$(CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT) += mux.o
CHANGELOG:    at91: rename DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT to CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT
common/Makefile:COBJS-$(CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT) += cmd_dataflash_mmc_mux.o
include/at45.h:#ifdef	CONFIG_DATAFLASH_MMC_SELECT
$

which suggests that, if one removes that CONFIG variable, there are a
couple source files that can go with it.

  i can trivially whip up a patch that takes all that out, unless
someone wants to argue to hang onto it for, say, future
consideration or something.  thoughts?  does someone from atmel have
an opinion on this?

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

            Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================