| Message ID | 20220517062929.3109873-1-anshuman.khandual@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | amba: Drop builtin_amba_driver() | expand |
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:29 AM Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote: > > Drop builtin_amba_driver() which is not used anymore. The patch looks correct, but I don't see the purpose. Are you trying to discourage having amba drivers as built-in? Otherwise the next time we get an amba driver that cannot be a loadable module, someone might want to add back the same macro. Arnd
On 5/18/22 17:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:29 AM Anshuman Khandual > <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Drop builtin_amba_driver() which is not used anymore. > > The patch looks correct, but I don't see the purpose. Are you trying > to discourage > having amba drivers as built-in? Otherwise the next time we get an amba > driver that cannot be a loadable module, someone might want to add back the > same macro. Right, then it should be added back. But for now this is just dead code and not being used, hence why keep it ?
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:08 AM Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote: > On 5/18/22 17:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:29 AM Anshuman Khandual > > <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote: > >> > >> Drop builtin_amba_driver() which is not used anymore. > > > > The patch looks correct, but I don't see the purpose. Are you trying > > to discourage > > having amba drivers as built-in? Otherwise the next time we get an amba > > driver that cannot be a loadable module, someone might want to add back the > > same macro. > > Right, then it should be added back. But for now this is just dead code > and not being used, hence why keep it ? I don't care if the function is there or not, the interface does exactly what one expects it to do, and it uses no space in the binary, but most likely nobody would miss it if it's gone. However, neither adding nor removing the function by itself to me hits the threshold of doing a meaningful change that is an overall improvement, so why send a patch? The original patch that added the function was similar: the coresight drivers were written to be loadable modules but Kconfig forced them to be built-in, so Paul's cleanup to remove the module bits felt like completely pointless churn that just made it harder for Kim to make them modular again. If you want to remove the macro out of spite for the original change, I'm sympathetic with that, but then put this in the patch description ;-) Arnd
diff --git a/include/linux/amba/bus.h b/include/linux/amba/bus.h index 6562f543c3e0..7c5d2aa73437 100644 --- a/include/linux/amba/bus.h +++ b/include/linux/amba/bus.h @@ -171,14 +171,4 @@ struct amba_device name##_device = { \ */ #define module_amba_driver(__amba_drv) \ module_driver(__amba_drv, amba_driver_register, amba_driver_unregister) - -/* - * builtin_amba_driver() - Helper macro for drivers that don't do anything - * special in driver initcall. This eliminates a lot of boilerplate. Each - * driver may only use this macro once, and calling it replaces the instance - * device_initcall(). - */ -#define builtin_amba_driver(__amba_drv) \ - builtin_driver(__amba_drv, amba_driver_register) - #endif
Drop builtin_amba_driver() which is not used anymore. Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk> Cc: Wang Kefeng <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> --- This applies on v5.18-rc7 include/linux/amba/bus.h | 10 ---------- 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)