[rt2x00-users] [PATCH 01/11] Removing dead RT2800PCI_SOC

Gertjan van Wingerde gwingerde at gmail.com
Sat Jul 17 01:46:28 AEST 2010


On 07/16/10 12:08, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Gertjan van Wingerde
> <gwingerde at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/16/10 08:57, Helmut Schaa wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier at gmail.com <mailto:bzolnier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Wednesday 14 July 2010 04:44:44 pm Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>>     > On 2010-07-14 3:15 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
>>>     > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:52:14PM +0200, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:
>>>     > >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Luis Correia <luis.f.correia at gmail.com <mailto:luis.f.correia at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>     > >> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 13:39, Christoph Egger <siccegge at cs.fau.de <mailto:siccegge at cs.fau.de>> wrote:
>>>     > >> >> While RT2800PCI_SOC exists in Kconfig, it depends on either
>>>     > >> >> RALINK_RT288X or RALINK_RT305X which are both not available in Kconfig
>>>     > >> >> so all Code depending on that can't ever be selected and, if there's
>>>     > >> >> no plan to add these options, should be cleaned up
>>>     > >> >>
>>>     > >> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Egger <siccegge at cs.fau.de <mailto:siccegge at cs.fau.de>>
>>>     > >> >
>>>     > >> > NAK,
>>>     > >> >
>>>     > >> > this is not dead code, it is needed for the Ralink System-on-Chip
>>>     > >> > Platform devices.
>>>     > >> >
>>>     > >> > While I can't fix Kconfig errors and the current KConfig file may be
>>>     > >> > wrong, this code cannot and will not be deleted.
>>>     > >>
>>>     > >> When the config option was introduced, the config options RALINK_RT288X and
>>>     > >> RALINK_RT305X were supposed to be merged as well soon after by somebody (Felix?)
>>>     > >>
>>>     > >> But since testing is done on SoC boards by Helmut and Felix, I assume the code
>>>     > >> isn't dead but actually in use.
>>>     > >
>>>     > > Perhaps Helmut and Felix can send us the missing code?
>>>     > The missing code is a MIPS platform port, which is currently being
>>>     > maintained in OpenWrt, but is not ready for upstream submission yet.
>>>     > I'm not working on this code at the moment, but I think it will be
>>>     > submitted once it's ready.
>>>
>>>     People are using automatic scripts to catch unused config options nowadays
>>>     so the issue is quite likely to come back again sooner or later..
>>>
>>>     Would it be possible to improve situation somehow till the missing parts
>>>     get merged?  Maybe by adding a tiny comment documenting RT2800PCI_SOC
>>>     situation to Kconfig (if the config option itself really cannot be removed)
>>>     until all code is ready etc.?
>>>
>>>
>>> Or we could just remove RT2800PCI_SOC completely and build the soc specific
>>> parts always as part of rt2800pci. I mean it's not much code, just the platform
>>> driver stuff and the eeprom access.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if that is feasible. Sure, we can reduce the usage of the variable by
>> unconditionally compiling in the generic SOC code, but we should not unconditionally
>> register the SOC platform device, which is currently also under the scope of this
>> Kconfig variable.
> 
> Ehm, no, the platform device is not registered in rt2800pci at all,
> it's just the platform
> driver that gets registered there. The platform device will be
> registered in the according
> board init code (that only resides in openwrt at the moment).
> 

OK. Didn't know that. Sounds good then.

However, I've tried this in my local tree, and now compilation fails on the x86 platform
due to a missing KSEG1ADDR macro. How do you suggest to handle the potentially missing
macro?

---
Gertjan.




More information about the users mailing list