On 12.08.2020 15:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> On 12.08.2020 13:28, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 12:46 PM Sylwester Nawrocki >>> <s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 12.08.2020 11:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> I see two board files (and no DT) instantiate the camif device: >>> NexVision Nexcoder 2440 and the FriendlyARM mini2440. >>> >>> Can you say whether the camif on those would actually work >>> at all without your patch? If not, we know that there are no >>> users of that driver and could either drop it completely or move >>> it to staging for a release or two. >> >> Without additional patches the camif will not work, the driver >> needs an instance of struct s3c_camif_plat_data which specifies >> what image sensor is attached. >> >> I think we can drop the driver, together with the s3c_camif_device >> platform device definitions. It can always be added again if anyone >> ever needs it or converts the platform to DT. > > Since the header was in /include/media I assumed there might be some > user-space tools using it. But if it is not the case, I'll drop the code > then. That's a kernel internal header, only for board files, it should really have been added to include/linux/platform_data. >> IMO all non-DT code in arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx is a candidate for >> removal, it just adds to the maintenance effort and I seriously >> doubt there are now any users of it. > > That is quite tricky... I really do not know whether there are any real > world users of S3C24xx and S3C64xx platforms. Evalkits are mostly not > available for buying so I do not expect new designs. However still > existing ones might be somewhere... Few years ago, back in Samsung, I > mentioned removing them. That time I think Marek or you Sylwester, said > that there are industrial applications using S3C24xx. I believe, why > not. The trouble is - how to find such users? How to get in touch for > testing or at least for bug reports if something is broken? I believe if there any such applications of the S3C24XX SoCs still existing somewhere their long term support doesn't include updating to new kernels. I used to keep a running S3C2440 SoC based board just for the purpose of testing patches touching the common code, but I stopped it, I think it is not worth to waste time and health on it any more. For example support for the OSELAS.BSP-Pengutronix-Mini2440 BSP I used for tests ended 5 years ago [1]. > Or even more important - is it worth to spend effort and time on this? > If there is no single production system using recent Linux kernel, the > answer should be negative... I suspect nobody cares about that code (non-DT s3c24xx) any more for other than sentimental reasons. [1] https://git.pengutronix.de/cgit/OSELAS.BSP-Pengutronix-Mini2440 -- Regards, Sylwester
