Hi Arnd,
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 5:26 AM Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
