[PATCH v4 11/12] ARM: kirkwood: remove redundant DT board files

[Jason Cooper]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:55:43PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 10:36 PM, Simon Baatz wrote:
> >Hi Sebastian,
> >
> >On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:41:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> >>With DT support for mv643xx_eth, board specific init for some boards now
> >>is unneccessary. Remove those board files, Kconfig entries, and
> >>corresponding entries in kirkwood_defconfig.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth<sebastian.hesselbarth at gmail.com>
> >>---
> >>Note: board-km_kirkwood.c is also removed, as Valentin Longchamp confirmed
> >>the lock-up is not caused by accessing clock gating registers but rather
> >>non-existent device registers. This will be addressed by dtsi separation
> >>for kirkwood and bobcat SoC variants.
> >>
> >>Changelog:
> >>v3->v4:
> >>- remove more boards that don't require board specific setup
> >>
> ...
> >We still have:
> >
> >static const char * const kirkwood_dt_board_compat[] = {
> >	"globalscale,dreamplug",
> >	"globalscale,guruplug",
> >	"dlink,dns-320",
> >	"dlink,dns-325",
> >	"iom,iconnect",
> >	"raidsonic,ib-nas62x0",
> >	"qnap,ts219",
> >	"seagate,dockstar",
> >	"seagate,goflexnet",
> >	"buffalo,lsxl",
> >	"iom,ix2-200",
> >	"keymile,km_kirkwood",
> >	"lacie,cloudbox",
> >	"lacie,inetspace_v2",
> >	"lacie,netspace_lite_v2",
> >	"lacie,netspace_max_v2",
> >	"lacie,netspace_mini_v2",
> >	"lacie,netspace_v2",
> >	"mpl,cec4",
> >	"netgear,readynas-duo-v2",
> >	"plathome,openblocks-a6",
> >	"usi,topkick",
> >	"zyxel,nsa310",
> >	NULL
> >};
> >
> >in that file. I think it does not make sense that we need to list
> >boards here that can be described fully by DT. When adding such a
> >board in the future, you will still need to adapt board-dt.c.
> 
> True, will remove the redundant compatible strings for v5.
> Actually, if I am not missing something, all compatible strings except
> "marvell,kirkwood" are redundant as long as board.dts append it
> correctly.
> 
> >Should we remove the boards that you removed above here as well and
> >add
> >
> >	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6192",
> >	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6281",
> >	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6282",
> >	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6283",
> >	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6702",
> >	"marvell,kirkwood-98DX4122",
> >
> >or even just state "marvell,kirkwood"?
> 
> I would stick with "marvell,kirkwood" only. This is SoC init code and
> we do not distinguish variants here at all.

Agreed, nice catch Simon.

thx,

Jason.