From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751726AbaIDJjd (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2014 05:39:33 -0400 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews02.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.5]:54754 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews02.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750778AbaIDJja (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2014 05:39:30 -0400 Message-ID: <1409823567.5546.80.camel@x220> Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/19] serial: samsung: Remove support for legacy clock code From: Paul Bolle To: Tomasz Figa Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim , Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , Marek Szyprowski , Mark Brown , Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= , Tomasz Figa Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:39:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <53C68FAB.9070102@samsung.com> References: <1404496099-26708-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <1404496099-26708-5-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <1405502840.4408.2.camel@x220> <53C67386.5070401@samsung.com> <1405520767.4408.39.camel@x220> <1405521324.4408.44.camel@x220> <53C68FAB.9070102@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-3.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Sep 2014 09:39:28.0376 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F226780:01CFC824] X-RcptDomain: vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:43 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On 16.07.2014 16:35, Paul Bolle wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:26 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > >> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 14:43 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >>> That's right. Apparently I missed them. I guess that's not critical, > >>> though, and could be done in separate patch, right? > >> > >> This is not critical at all, so that's fine with me. > > > > Actually, that's only correct if the solution here is to just remove the > > (currently) dead code hidden behind CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK. But if the > > solution requires something less trivial, that might be quite wrong. > > > > So please disregard my comment! > > The code between those ifdefs is no longer used, because all Samsung > platforms use the Common Clock Framework after this series. So I believe > we can safely remove this dead code. The three checks for CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK can still be seen in v3.17-rc3 and next-20140903. Should I perhaps submit the trivial patch to remove them (and the code they hide) or did things turn out to be more complicated? Paul Bolle From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pebolle@tiscali.nl (Paul Bolle) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:39:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 04/19] serial: samsung: Remove support for legacy clock code In-Reply-To: <53C68FAB.9070102@samsung.com> References: <1404496099-26708-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <1404496099-26708-5-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <1405502840.4408.2.camel@x220> <53C67386.5070401@samsung.com> <1405520767.4408.39.camel@x220> <1405521324.4408.44.camel@x220> <53C68FAB.9070102@samsung.com> Message-ID: <1409823567.5546.80.camel@x220> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:43 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On 16.07.2014 16:35, Paul Bolle wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:26 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > >> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 14:43 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >>> That's right. Apparently I missed them. I guess that's not critical, > >>> though, and could be done in separate patch, right? > >> > >> This is not critical at all, so that's fine with me. > > > > Actually, that's only correct if the solution here is to just remove the > > (currently) dead code hidden behind CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK. But if the > > solution requires something less trivial, that might be quite wrong. > > > > So please disregard my comment! > > The code between those ifdefs is no longer used, because all Samsung > platforms use the Common Clock Framework after this series. So I believe > we can safely remove this dead code. The three checks for CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK can still be seen in v3.17-rc3 and next-20140903. Should I perhaps submit the trivial patch to remove them (and the code they hide) or did things turn out to be more complicated? Paul Bolle