ARM: at91: remove ISI code for AT91SAM9263
PATCH 1/1 ARM: at91: remove ISI code for AT91SAM9263
In v2.6.25 code was added for an Image Sensor Interface (ISI) for AT91SAM9263. That code depended on the Kconfig macro CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI and its MODULE variant. The related Kconfig symbol has never been added to the tree. The net effect of this was that at91_add_device_isi() was a NOP. No one noticed because no callers of that function were added to the tree at that time.
The first caller of a function with that name was added in v3.4. But that caller apparently only called the function defined for AT91SAM9G45. (that function was also added in v3.4). So even then AT91SAM9263's NOP version of at91_add_device_isi() remained unused. This means that the ISI code for AT91SAM9263 can be removed.
---
Untested!
Could someone please verify that this definition of at91_add_device_isi() really never will be called.
arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c | 57 -------------------------------- 1 file changed, 57 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c +0 -57
@@ -897,63 +897,6 @@ void __init at91_add_device_lcdc(struct atmel_lcdfb_pdata *data) {}/* -------------------------------------------------------------------- -* Image Sensor Interface -* -------------------------------------------------------------------- */ - -#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI ) || defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI_MODULE ) - -struct resource isi_resources[] = { - [0 ] = { - .start =AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI , - .end =AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI +SZ_16K -1 , - .flags =IORESOURCE_MEM , - }, - [1 ] = { - .start =NR_IRQS_LEGACY +AT91SAM9263_ID_ISI , - .end =NR_IRQS_LEGACY +AT91SAM9263_ID_ISI , - .flags =IORESOURCE_IRQ , - }, -}; - -static struct platform_device at91sam9263_isi_device = { - .name ="at91_isi" , - .id =-1 , - .resource = isi_resources, - .num_resources =ARRAY_SIZE (isi_resources), -}; - -void __init at91_add_device_isi (struct isi_platform_data *data, -bool use_pck_as_mck) -{ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE0 ,0 );/* ISI_D0 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE1 ,0 );/* ISI_D1 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE2 ,0 );/* ISI_D2 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE3 ,0 );/* ISI_D3 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE4 ,0 );/* ISI_D4 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE5 ,0 );/* ISI_D5 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE6 ,0 );/* ISI_D6 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE7 ,0 );/* ISI_D7 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE8 ,0 );/* ISI_PCK */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE9 ,0 );/* ISI_HSYNC */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE10 ,0 );/* ISI_VSYNC */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE12 ,0 );/* ISI_PD8 */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE13 ,0 );/* ISI_PD9 */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE14 ,0 );/* ISI_PD10 */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE15 ,0 );/* ISI_PD11 */ - -if (use_pck_as_mck) { -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE11 ,0 );/* ISI_MCK (PCK3) */ - -/* TODO: register the PCK for ISI_MCK and set its parent */ - } -} -#else -void __init at91_add_device_isi (struct isi_platform_data *data, -bool use_pck_as_mck) {} -#endif - - -/* -------------------------------------------------------------------- * Timer/Counter block * -------------------------------------------------------------------- */
Signature · 1 line
1.9.0
Hi, Paul
Quoted 13 lines · Paul Bolle
In v2.6.25 code was added for an Image Sensor Interface (ISI) for AT91SAM9263. That code depended on the
KconfigmacroCONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISIand its MODULE variant. The relatedKconfigsymbol has never been added to the tree. The net effect of this was thatat91_add_device_isi()was a NOP. No one noticed because no callers of that function were added to the tree at that time.The first caller of a function with that name was added in v3.4. But that caller apparently only called the function defined for AT91SAM9G45. (that function was also added in v3.4). So even then AT91SAM9263's NOP version of
at91_add_device_isi()remained unused. This means that the ISI code for AT91SAM9263 can be removed.
Quoted 6 lines
Signed-off-by Paul Bolle <[email protected]>---
Untested!Could someone please verify that this definition of
at91_add_device_isi()really never will be called.
Right. There is no implement to support for at91sam9263 ISI. So in at91sam9263ek it will not call at91_add_device_isi(). Current ISI driver only support at91sam9g45 and later chips.
Best Regards,
Josh Wu
Quoted 72 lines
arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c | 57 -------------------------------- 1 file changed, 57 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c +0
-57@@ -897,63 +897,6 @@ void __init at91_add_device_lcdc(struct atmel_lcdfb_pdata *data) {}/* -------------------------------------------------------------------- -* Image Sensor Interface -* -------------------------------------------------------------------- */ - -#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI ) || defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI_MODULE ) - -struct resource isi_resources[] = { - [0 ] = { - .start =AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI , - .end =AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI +SZ_16K -1 , - .flags =IORESOURCE_MEM , - }, - [1 ] = { - .start =NR_IRQS_LEGACY +AT91SAM9263_ID_ISI , - .end =NR_IRQS_LEGACY +AT91SAM9263_ID_ISI , - .flags =IORESOURCE_IRQ , - }, -}; - -static struct platform_device at91sam9263_isi_device = { - .name ="at91_isi" , - .id =-1 , - .resource = isi_resources, - .num_resources =ARRAY_SIZE (isi_resources), -}; - -void __init at91_add_device_isi (struct isi_platform_data *data, -bool use_pck_as_mck) -{ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE0 ,0 );/* ISI_D0 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE1 ,0 );/* ISI_D1 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE2 ,0 );/* ISI_D2 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE3 ,0 );/* ISI_D3 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE4 ,0 );/* ISI_D4 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE5 ,0 );/* ISI_D5 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE6 ,0 );/* ISI_D6 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE7 ,0 );/* ISI_D7 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE8 ,0 );/* ISI_PCK */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE9 ,0 );/* ISI_HSYNC */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE10 ,0 );/* ISI_VSYNC */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE12 ,0 );/* ISI_PD8 */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE13 ,0 );/* ISI_PD9 */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE14 ,0 );/* ISI_PD10 */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE15 ,0 );/* ISI_PD11 */ - -if (use_pck_as_mck) { -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE11 ,0 );/* ISI_MCK (PCK3) */ - -/* TODO: register the PCK for ISI_MCK and set its parent */ - } -} -#else -void __init at91_add_device_isi (struct isi_platform_data *data, -bool use_pck_as_mck) {} -#endif - - -/* -------------------------------------------------------------------- * Timer/Counter block * -------------------------------------------------------------------- */
Quoted 8 lines · Paul Bolle
In v2.6.25 code was added for an Image Sensor Interface (ISI) for AT91SAM9263. That code depended on the
KconfigmacroCONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISIand its MODULE variant. The relatedKconfigsymbol has never been added to the tree. The net effect of this was thatat91_add_device_isi()was a NOP. No one noticed because no callers of that function were added to the tree at that time.
Quoted 6 lines
The first caller of a function with that name was added in v3.4. But that caller apparently only called the function defined for AT91SAM9G45. (that function was also added in v3.4). So even then AT91SAM9263's NOP version of
at91_add_device_isi()remained unused. This means that the ISI code for AT91SAM9263 can be removed.
Nack
this is just resources and allow until this is converted to DTS to have the pinctrl and register information
Best Regards,
J.
Quoted 81 lines
Signed-off-by Paul Bolle <[email protected]>---
Untested!Could someone please verify that this definition of
at91_add_device_isi()really never will be called.
arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c| 57 --------------------------------1 file changed, 57 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c +0
-57@@ -897,63 +897,6 @@ void __init at91_add_device_lcdc(struct atmel_lcdfb_pdata *data) {}/* -------------------------------------------------------------------- -* Image Sensor Interface -* -------------------------------------------------------------------- */ - -#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI ) || defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI_MODULE ) - -struct resource isi_resources[] = { - [0 ] = { - .start =AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI , - .end =AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI +SZ_16K -1 , - .flags =IORESOURCE_MEM , - }, - [1 ] = { - .start =NR_IRQS_LEGACY +AT91SAM9263_ID_ISI , - .end =NR_IRQS_LEGACY +AT91SAM9263_ID_ISI , - .flags =IORESOURCE_IRQ , - }, -}; - -static struct platform_device at91sam9263_isi_device = { - .name ="at91_isi" , - .id =-1 , - .resource = isi_resources, - .num_resources =ARRAY_SIZE (isi_resources), -}; - -void __init at91_add_device_isi (struct isi_platform_data *data, -bool use_pck_as_mck) -{ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE0 ,0 );/* ISI_D0 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE1 ,0 );/* ISI_D1 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE2 ,0 );/* ISI_D2 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE3 ,0 );/* ISI_D3 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE4 ,0 );/* ISI_D4 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE5 ,0 );/* ISI_D5 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE6 ,0 );/* ISI_D6 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE7 ,0 );/* ISI_D7 */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE8 ,0 );/* ISI_PCK */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE9 ,0 );/* ISI_HSYNC */ -at91_set_A_periph (AT91_PIN_PE10 ,0 );/* ISI_VSYNC */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE12 ,0 );/* ISI_PD8 */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE13 ,0 );/* ISI_PD9 */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE14 ,0 );/* ISI_PD10 */ -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE15 ,0 );/* ISI_PD11 */ - -if (use_pck_as_mck) { -at91_set_B_periph (AT91_PIN_PE11 ,0 );/* ISI_MCK (PCK3) */ - -/* TODO: register the PCK for ISI_MCK and set its parent */ - } -} -#else -void __init at91_add_device_isi (struct isi_platform_data *data, -bool use_pck_as_mck) {} -#endif - - -/* -------------------------------------------------------------------- * Timer/Counter block * -------------------------------------------------------------------- */ Signature · 1 line
1.9.0
PATCH v2 1/1 ARM: at91: #if 0 out ISI code for AT91SAM9263
In v2.6.25 code was added for an Image Sensor Interface (ISI) for AT91SAM9263. That code depended on the Kconfig macro CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI and its MODULE variant. The related Kconfig symbol has never been added to the tree. The net effect of this was that at91_add_device_isi() was a NOP. No one noticed because no callers of that function were added to the tree at that time.
The first caller of a function with that name was added in v3.4. But that caller apparently only called the function defined for AT91SAM9G45. (that function was also added in v3.4). So even then AT91SAM9263's NOP version of at91_add_device_isi() remained unused.
This means that the ISI code for AT91SAM9263 could be removed. But, since it can be useful for future reference, let's "#if 0" it instead.
---
v2: Jean-Christophe would like to keep the information currently hidden behind "#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI) [...]". I'd like the reference to that Kconfig macro dropped. Using "#if 0" will do both, so that makes for a nice compromise, I'd say.
Josh verified that this definition of at91_add_device_isi() never will be called. Thanks!
Still untested!
arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c +1 -5
@@ -900,8 +900,7 @@ void __init at91_add_device_lcdc(struct atmel_lcdfb_pdata *data) {}* Image Sensor Interface * -------------------------------------------------------------------- */ -#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI) || defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI_MODULE) - +#if 0 /* keep for future reference */ struct resource isi_resources[] = { [0] = { .start = AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI,
@@ -947,9 +946,6 @@ void __init at91_add_device_isi(struct isi_platform_data *data, /* TODO: register the PCK for ISI_MCK and set its parent */ } } -#else -void __init at91_add_device_isi (struct isi_platform_data *data, -bool use_pck_as_mck) {}#endif
Signature · 1 line
1.9.0
Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: #if 0 out ISI code for AT91SAM9263
Hi, Paul
Quoted 15 lines · Paul Bolle
In v2.6.25 code was added for an Image Sensor Interface (ISI) for AT91SAM9263. That code depended on the
KconfigmacroCONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISIand its MODULE variant. The relatedKconfigsymbol has never been added to the tree. The net effect of this was thatat91_add_device_isi()was a NOP. No one noticed because no callers of that function were added to the tree at that time.The first caller of a function with that name was added in v3.4. But that caller apparently only called the function defined for AT91SAM9G45. (that function was also added in v3.4). So even then AT91SAM9263's NOP version of
at91_add_device_isi()remained unused.This means that the ISI code for AT91SAM9263 could be removed. But, since it can be useful for future reference, let's "#if 0" it instead.
Quoted 6 lines
Signed-off-by Paul Bolle <[email protected]>---
v2: Jean-Christophe would like to keep the information currently hidden behind "#ifdefined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI)[...]". I'd like the reference to thatKconfigmacro dropped. Using "#if 0" will do both, so that makes for a nice compromise, I'd say.
I think we can keep the #if 0 as a reference so far. When the devices file is finally removed. We will add the ISI resouces to DT file. So I am ok with this.
Hi, J.C.
What do you think of this patch?
Best Regards,
Josh Wu
Quoted 33 lines
Josh verified that this definition of
at91_add_device_isi()never will be called. Thanks!Still untested!
arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c +1
-5@@ -900,8 +900,7 @@ void __init at91_add_device_lcdc(struct atmel_lcdfb_pdata *data) {}* Image Sensor Interface * -------------------------------------------------------------------- */ -#if defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI) || defined(CONFIG_VIDEO_AT91_ISI_MODULE) - +#if 0 /* keep for future reference */ struct resource isi_resources[] = { [0] = { .start = AT91SAM9263_BASE_ISI,@@ -947,9 +946,6 @@ void __init at91_add_device_isi(struct isi_platform_data *data, /* TODO: register the PCK for ISI_MCK and set its parent */ } } -#else -void __init at91_add_device_isi (struct isi_platform_data *data, -bool use_pck_as_mck) {}#endif