From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: manabian@gmail.com (Joachim Eastwood) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:35:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC] ARM: at91: remove at91_register_uart_fns and headers In-Reply-To: <4F856D0E.5040802@atmel.com> References: <1333728149-32711-1-git-send-email-joachim.eastwood@jotron.com> <20120408180906.GA13348@samfundet.no> <4F856D0E.5040802@atmel.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > On 04/08/2012 11:55 PM, Andrew Victor : >> hi, >> >>> Yeah, as far as I know, nobody ever used this functionality on AVR32. >>> In fact, I can't even think of a reason to use it. >>> >>> But I seem to recall submitting a patch to remove this functionality a >>> long time ago, and it was struck down. I don't remember the reason, >>> but there's a chance it might still be valid. >> >> Some of the SAN People / Multenet AT91RM9200 boards needed it.... >> We needed to use GPIO pins for some of the modem-control signals - >> couldn't use the standard pins since the alternate pin function was >> being used. >> >> Regards, >> ?Andrew Victor > > Hi Andrew, > > Well if it is of some interest on your side, I am in favor of keeping > this feature. It is not a so big amount of code and seems quite easy to > maintain... It's not a big deal for me whether the code stays or not. The only reason I bumped into it was while trying to get atmel_serial to compile as a module and the serial_at91.h header generated some build error. But still, why keep a feature with no mainline users. A new kernel feature is never accepted without any users. I also think it's hard to maintain the code without any users. I may be easy to preserve the code but you can never change/improve the code since you can't change the users of the code. regards Joachim Eastwood