| Message ID | 1404496099-26708-5-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 19:48 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > All Samsung platforms are now using the Common Clock Framework and the > legacy clock code is being removed, so remove related dead code from > samsung-serial driver as well. > > Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> (maintainer:SERIAL DRIVERS) > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> (supporter:TTY LAYER) > Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org (open list:SERIAL DRIVERS) > --- > drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) This just entered linux-next (see next-20140716). > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c > index 36c7747..cae8ebd 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c > @@ -47,10 +47,6 @@ > > #include <asm/irq.h> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK > -#include <plat/clock.h> > -#endif > - > #include "samsung.h" > > #if defined(CONFIG_SERIAL_SAMSUNG_DEBUG) && \ There are three further references to CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK in this file. Those should be removed too, shouldn't they? Paul Bolle
On 16.07.2014 11:27, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 19:48 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> All Samsung platforms are now using the Common Clock Framework and the >> legacy clock code is being removed, so remove related dead code from >> samsung-serial driver as well. >> >> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> >> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> >> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> (maintainer:SERIAL DRIVERS) >> Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> (supporter:TTY LAYER) >> Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org (open list:SERIAL DRIVERS) >> --- >> drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c | 4 ---- >> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > This just entered linux-next (see next-20140716). > >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c >> index 36c7747..cae8ebd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c >> @@ -47,10 +47,6 @@ >> >> #include <asm/irq.h> >> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK >> -#include <plat/clock.h> >> -#endif >> - >> #include "samsung.h" >> >> #if defined(CONFIG_SERIAL_SAMSUNG_DEBUG) && \ > > There are three further references to CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK in this file. > Those should be removed too, shouldn't they? That's right. Apparently I missed them. I guess that's not critical, though, and could be done in separate patch, right? Best regards, Tomasz
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 14:43 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On 16.07.2014 11:27, Paul Bolle wrote: > > There are three further references to CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK in this file. > > Those should be removed too, shouldn't they? > > 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. Paul Bolle
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! Paul Bolle
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. Best regards, Tomasz
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
[Use Tomasz's new address and add Sylwester.] On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 11:39 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > 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
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c index 36c7747..cae8ebd 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c @@ -47,10 +47,6 @@ #include <asm/irq.h> -#ifdef CONFIG_SAMSUNG_CLOCK -#include <plat/clock.h> -#endif - #include "samsung.h" #if defined(CONFIG_SERIAL_SAMSUNG_DEBUG) && \
All Samsung platforms are now using the Common Clock Framework and the legacy clock code is being removed, so remove related dead code from samsung-serial driver as well. Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> (maintainer:SERIAL DRIVERS) Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> (supporter:TTY LAYER) Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org (open list:SERIAL DRIVERS) --- drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)