Hi Tomi, On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 03:30:15PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 13/03/2020 15:22, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 02:24:10PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >> Remove unused writeback code. This code will never be used, as omapfb is > >> being deprecated. > > > > I'm fine with that, but out of curiosity, is there any particular reason > > to remove that code now instead of letting omapfb bitrot slowly ? > > It conflicts with tidss's writeback code in TI kernel, when compiling tidss and omapfb into the > kernel. I thought this is the easiest way to resolve that, as all the removed code is dead code, > instead of trying to invent new names in tidss for a lot of functions. > > Probably the functions in tidss still could use some renaming in the future, but I didn't want to be > forced to do that because of omapfb's dead code... Could you do both ? :-) It's not good using too generic names in tidss. You can just prefix the functions with tidss_. There's a risk of conflict with omapdrm too if the names are too generic. > So, not a super good reason, but on the other hand, removing dead code is always a good thing. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
