lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: mtx-1: Drop au1000.h header inclusion
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 07:38:29PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 12/11/2019 5:35 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 12/11/19 1:02 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> Including au1000.h from the machine specific header directory prevents
> >> this driver from being built on any other platforms (MIPS included).
> >> Since we do not use any definitions, drop it.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c | 2 --
> >>   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c
> >> index 25a92857b217..aeca22f7450e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c
> >> @@ -41,8 +41,6 @@
> >>   #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> >>   #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> >>   -#include <asm/mach-au1x00/au1000.h>
> >> -
> >>   #define MTX1_WDT_INTERVAL    (5 * HZ)
> >>     static int ticks = 100 * HZ;
> >>
> >
> > Given that this is nothing but yet another gpio watchdog driver, I'd
> > personally rather have it merged with gpio_wdt.c. On a higher level,
> > cleaning up old-style watchdog drivers, without converting them to
> > using the watchdog core, is a waste of time.
>
> If that makes you feel any better, I was not planning on going further
> than that, and yes, removing this driver and using gpio_wdt.c would be
> the way to go, this driver greatly predates gpio_wdt.c and I have since
> then not had access to my MTX-1 platforms which is why this did not
> happen. We can attempt a "blind conversion" without testing, but what
> good would that make, not sure.
>

It sounds like this is a purely cosmetical change to improve test build
coverage for a more or less obsolete driver. No, that doesn't make me feel
better; I get way too many of those lately. Worse, some of those test build
"improvements" actually end up breaking real builds, which then costs me
and others even more time to track down.

We should really discourage that. Is there some challenge going on somewhere,
along the line of "improve test build coverage" ?

Guenter

> >
> > Wim, should we make it a policy to reject patches into old-style drivers
> > unless they fix a real bug ? It is getting a pain to have to review those
> > patches.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Guenter
>
> --
> Florian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-12 19:20    [W:0.074 / U:2.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site