On Wed, May 17, 2023, at 17:45, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> Thus wrote Arnd Bergmann (arnd@xxxxxxxx):
>
>> I think either way is ok to address the warning. If we wanted to do this
>> properly, the mx{25,27,31,35,5}_revision functions could all be removed
>> and the logic hooked up to imx_set_soc_revision() in the same way that
>> they already use mxc_set_cpu_type() for drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx.c.
>
>> I'll leave it up to you, if you want to merge Martin's patches or
>> a replacement for the soc-imx driver through the imx tree for 6.5,
>> I'll drop my patch from this series, otherwise I'll keep it for now
>> and we can still do it better at later point.
>
> I suggest we merge my patches for imx25 first and then clean up all the
> older imx families to use the common functions.
>
> I've just rebased the patches against today's linux-next. My understanding
> is that they have to go through the clk tree.
This never happened, right? I see that mx25_revision() is still in the
tree without any users, so I can't easily turn on the warning by default
yet. Should I just go ahead and remove it for 5.6, or do you expect to
have your patch ready in time for the merge window?
Arnd
