Messages in this thread | | | From | Masahiro Yamada <> | Date | Sun, 21 Jul 2019 12:44:53 +0900 | Subject | Re: [Question] orphan platform data header |
| |
Hi Arnd,
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 5:26 AM Masahiro Yamada > <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote: > > > > masahiro@grover:~/ref/linux$ git grep netxbig_led_platform_data > > drivers/leds/leds-netxbig.c: struct > > netxbig_led_platform_data *pdata, > > drivers/leds/leds-netxbig.c: struct > > netxbig_led_platform_data *pdata) > > drivers/leds/leds-netxbig.c: struct > > netxbig_led_platform_data *pdata) > > drivers/leds/leds-netxbig.c: struct netxbig_led_platform_data > > *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev); > > include/linux/platform_data/leds-kirkwood-netxbig.h:struct > > netxbig_led_platform_data { > > > > > > > > So, what shall we do? > > > > Drop the board-file support? Or, keep it > > in case somebody is still using their board-files > > in downstream? > > Generally speaking, I'd remove the board file support in another > case like this, but it's worth looking at when it was last used and by > what. > > For this file, all boards got converted to DT, and the old setup > code removed in commit ebc278f15759 ("ARM: mvebu: remove static > LED setup for netxbig boards"), four years ago, so it's a fairly > easy decision to make it DT only.
Thanks.
I see another case, which is difficult to make a decision.
For example, drivers/spi/spi-tle62x0.c
This driver supports only board-file, but the board-file is not found in upstream.
Unless I am terribly missing something, there is no one who passes tle62x0_pdata to this driver.
$ git grep tle62x0_pdata drivers/spi/spi-tle62x0.c: struct tle62x0_pdata *pdata; include/linux/spi/tle62x0.h:struct tle62x0_pdata {
But, removing board-file support makes this driver completely useless...
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |