[PATCH 14/15] ARM: shmobile: Remove AP4EVB board support

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Magnus Damm wrote:

> Hi Guennadi,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
> <g.liakhovetski at gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi Simon
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
> >
> >> From: Magnus Damm <damm at opensource.se>
> >>
> >> Remove board support for the sh7372 based AP4EVB board
> >>
> >> The sh7372 SoC support code is still kept around since it
> >> is in use by the Mackerel board which is basically a more
> >> recent board where the design is based on AP4EVB.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm <damm at opensource.se>
> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas at verge.net.au>
> >
> > It would be a pity if this patch gets pulled now. We're still discussing
> > with Magnus, I believe. My opinion is, that this board is a good testing
> > platform for V4L2. It is the only board in the mainline, using the CSI2
> > interface, present on multiple Renesas SoCs, including r8a73a4 (APE6), and
> > (probably, not 100% sure) sh73a0 (AG5), and the IMX074 camera sensor, not
> > present on any other platform. If this board is removed, supporting both
> > CSI2 and IMX074 will become difficult. Besides, AP4EVB is used as an
> > example in my V4L2 clock / async probing patch series:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg63174.html
> >
> > If still possible, would be good to delay removing this board until we
> > complete our discussion.
> 
> If fine with keeping the board if someone can show me progress in the
> area of INTC DT support. Recently I have not seen anything.
> 
> So if no one is developing DT support for this board then I can't
> really see how we will be able to support it in the future with ARM
> SoC requirements for DT and MULTIPLATFORM...

You seem to be keeping the other sh7372 board currently in the mainline - 
the mackerel, so, keeping this one as well at least as long as sh7372 is 
at all supported shouldn't come at an extra cost. As for INTC DT - I 
think, the original idea was to specify the complete INTC configuration in 
DT, which looked pretty horrifying. And it shouldn't be needed, since INTC 
config is per-SoC, not per-board. What if we keep INTC configuration in 
SoC files and use aux-data to supply platform data to DT device nodes? 
Would that be difficult to implement?

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/