Drop more omap3 legacy board-*.c files for v4.2

Quoted 55 lines · On Tuesday 05 May 2015 10:00:21 Tony Lindgren wrote:

Quoted 39 lines · Pali Roh?r

Quoted 38 lines · On Tuesday 05 May 2015 17:06:38 Tony Lindgren wrote:

Quoted 36 lines · Pali Roh?r

Quoted 25 lines · On Tuesday 05 May 2015 07:43:08 Tony Lindgren wrote:

Quoted 11 lines · Arnd Bergmann

Quoted 10 lines · On Monday 04 May 2015 13:01:54 Tony Lindgren wrote:

For dropping the remaining omap3 legacy boot support, we still have the following board-*.c files:

BOARD REASON NEEDED
board-ldp.c Still used in RMKs boot test
system board-omap3logic.c Getting a .dts file
for v4.2 board-omap3pandora.c Got a .dts file for
v4.1 board-rx51-*.c Needs /proc/atags
support for user space

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 5 lines

I'm hoping we can drop those for v4.3 merge window, then keep the platform data around for one more merge window in case of reverting needed, then drop the platform data too for v4.4 if no issues needing reverting are found.

Sounds great. Has there been a conclusion about what to do for the rx51 /proc/atags support?

I believe we just need to enable /proc/atags also for device tree based booting if CONFIG_ARM_ATAG_DTB_COMPAT. Pali may have more info on that.

Quoted 5 lines

Then looks like Pali's two patches for showing the revision are still pending in thread "[PATCH v2 0/2] ARM:
/proc/cpuinfo: DT: Add support for Revision":

http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg401535.html

I think I already sent all need patches to ML. But I did not check if you merged them or not. I did not get any new comments for them for a while and right now I do not have time for looking at it again.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 5 lines

Oh OK, do you have link to the /proc/atags patch somewhere?

Maybe Arnd and Nico can pick them up and sort out how we should queue them with Russell?

https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/26/648

Hmm looks like you should resend all your pending four patches properly with the people mentioned above in Cc to the LAKML and linux-omap.. Assuming something will happen to them when the patches are buried into a middle of some old threads does not work well.. Best to just follow das protokoll und whine and follow up until the patches get merged :)

Quoted 3 lines

Regards,

Tony

Now I resent "ARM: /proc/cpuinfo: DT: Add support for Revision" patches to MLs again without in-reply-to header.

Patches for /proc/atags I do not have currently in git format-patch mbox format, so cannot resent it right now...