On Wednesday 25 April 2012, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > As far as I know legacy SoCs are allowed to keep being non-DT and I don't see > > the older Samsung SoCs (especially the S3C24XX ones) changing to DT anytime > > soon, as they don't see any new development but only bug fixes currently. > > > > > > > for my point of view it's cosmetics change > > it is, but it also makes the code more readable > we get comment from Linus to do not do cosmetic changes > > so if it work well I'll not touch it I would leave this up for the platform maintainers to decide individually, as there is no easy answer. Generally cleanups are welcome and the patch series has the nice effect of removing a few hundred lines from the platform, which is good. On the other hand I agree that we should not mess too much with legacy platforms: If something is in the state where we just want to keep it running and not get it up to modern coding standards, we shouldn't be doing those changes, but if a platform is important enough to warrant such cleanups, we should go the full way and make it use all the right subsystems and use DT instead of board files. Note that the point of the DEFINE_RES_*() macros is really to prevent people from coming up with new silly macros to do the same thing, as we've had in the past. Converting existing code that is just open-coding the resources to use these macros is just noise IMHO. If Kukjin Kim wants to take those patches, I won't complain though. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |