| Message ID | 20190621094607.15011-1-puranjay12@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: fddi: skfp: Use PCI generic definitions instead of private duplicates | expand |
[+cc Stephen] On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 03:16:04PM +0530, Puranjay Mohan wrote: > This patch series removes the private duplicates of PCI definitions in > favour of generic definitions defined in pci_regs.h. > > This driver only uses some of the generic PCI definitons, > which are included from pci_regs.h and thier private versions > are removed from skfbi.h with all other private defines. > > The skfbi.h defines PCI_REV_ID and other private defines with different > names, these are renamed to Generic PCI names to make them > compatible with defines in pci_regs.h. > > All unused defines are removed from skfbi.h. > > Puranjay Mohan (3): > net: fddi: skfp: Rename local PCI defines to match generic PCI defines > net: fddi: skfp: Include generic PCI definitions > net: fddi: skfp: Remove unused private PCI definitions > > drivers/net/fddi/skfp/drvfbi.c | 3 +- > drivers/net/fddi/skfp/h/skfbi.h | 80 +-------------------------------- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-) It's good form to CC people who have commented on previous versions of your series, so I added Stephen. FWIW, Reviewed-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:16:04 +0530 Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> wrote: > This patch series removes the private duplicates of PCI definitions in > favour of generic definitions defined in pci_regs.h. Why bother ? It's an ancient obsolete card ? Do you even have one to test ? > > This driver only uses some of the generic PCI definitons, > which are included from pci_regs.h and thier private versions > are removed from skfbi.h with all other private defines. > > The skfbi.h defines PCI_REV_ID and other private defines with different > names, these are renamed to Generic PCI names to make them > compatible with defines in pci_regs.h. > > All unused defines are removed from skfbi.h. I sincerely doubt anyone on the planet is using this card any more. Alan
On 6/21/19 9:20 AM, Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:16:04 +0530 > Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This patch series removes the private duplicates of PCI definitions in >> favour of generic definitions defined in pci_regs.h. > > Why bother ? It's an ancient obsolete card ? > > Do you even have one to test ? > >> >> This driver only uses some of the generic PCI definitons, >> which are included from pci_regs.h and thier private versions >> are removed from skfbi.h with all other private defines. >> >> The skfbi.h defines PCI_REV_ID and other private defines with different >> names, these are renamed to Generic PCI names to make them >> compatible with defines in pci_regs.h. >> >> All unused defines are removed from skfbi.h. > > I sincerely doubt anyone on the planet is using this card any more. > > Alan > Thanks Alan! Stephen Hemminger is suggesting removal as well. Makes sense to me. David! What would you recommend the next steps are? Would like driver removed? thanks, -- Shuah
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:20:24PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:16:04 +0530 > Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This patch series removes the private duplicates of PCI definitions in > > favour of generic definitions defined in pci_regs.h. > > Why bother ? It's an ancient obsolete card ? That's a fair question. Is there anything that would indicate that "this file is obsolete and problems shouldn't be fixed"? Nobody wants to waste time on things that don't need to be fixed, but I don't know how to tell if something is obsolete. My naive assumption is that if something is in the tree, it's fair game for fixes and cleanups. Bjorn
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 11:44 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:20:24PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:16:04 +0530 > > Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > This patch series removes the private duplicates of PCI definitions in > > > favour of generic definitions defined in pci_regs.h. > > > > Why bother ? It's an ancient obsolete card ? > > That's a fair question. > > Is there anything that would indicate that "this file is obsolete and > problems shouldn't be fixed"? Nobody wants to waste time on things > that don't need to be fixed, but I don't know how to tell if something > is obsolete. > > My naive assumption is that if something is in the tree, it's fair > game for fixes and cleanups. I'd prefer to move the old, crufty, obsolete and generally unsupported drivers to new directory trees and possibly symlink those drivers to their current locations. I suggested on the kernel summit list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-June/006482.html --- Perhaps a mechanism to move these old, generally unsupported by an actual maintainer, and rarely tested drivers out of the mainline drivers directory into a separate obsolete directory would help isolate the whitespace and trivial api changes.
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:36:02 -0600 > Stephen Hemminger is suggesting removal as well. Makes sense to me. ... > What would you recommend the next steps are? Would like driver > removed? If you hadn't proposed the cleanups nobody would have said to remove this driver. Really if someone wants to go through the tree and send removal patches for seemingly really unused drivers, that is a separate piece of work unrelated to your cleanup. While something still is in the tree we should clean it up from stuff like this. Therefore, I'll be applying v5 of your changes, thanks.