On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:21 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Sergio Paracuellos (2023-03-20 13:17:47)
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 8:38 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoting Sergio Paracuellos (2023-03-20 09:18:20)
> > > > Clock related code has been removed from 'arch/mips/ralink' folder and put
> > > > into drivers space. Hence remove clock related prototypes which are not
> > > > used anymore.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/mips/ralink/common.h | 3 ---
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/ralink/common.h b/arch/mips/ralink/common.h
> > > > index 87fc16751281..fcdfc9dc6210 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/mips/ralink/common.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/mips/ralink/common.h
> > > > @@ -23,9 +23,6 @@ extern struct ralink_soc_info soc_info;
> > > >
> > > > extern void ralink_of_remap(void);
> > > >
> > > > -extern void ralink_clk_init(void);
> > >
> > > Why isn't this removed in the patch that removes the function?
> >
> > Because the function exists for all the SoCs code and there are
> > several patches removing it; one per SoC, so I decided to remove this
> > at the end. Should I squash all patches together instead?
>
> No. But you should squash this with whatever patch removes the last one.
Ah, ok. I see your point. I will squash this with the last removal, then.
Thanks,
Sergio Paracuellos
