Subject: [PATCH v4 11/12] ARM: kirkwood: remove redundant DT board files

From: [email-masked] (Sebastian Hesselbarth)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 22:55:43 +0200

On 05/22/2013 10:36 PM, Simon Baatz wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:41:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> With DT support for mv643xx_eth, board specific init for some boards now
>> is unneccessary. Remove those board files, Kconfig entries, and
>> corresponding entries in kirkwood_defconfig.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth<[email-masked]>
>> ---
>> Note: board-km_kirkwood.c is also removed, as Valentin Longchamp confirmed
>> the lock-up is not caused by accessing clock gating registers but rather
>> non-existent device registers. This will be addressed by dtsi separation
>> for kirkwood and bobcat SoC variants.
>>
>> Changelog:
>> v3->v4:
>> - remove more boards that don't require board specific setup
>>
...
> We still have:
>
> static const char * const kirkwood_dt_board_compat[] = {
> 	"globalscale,dreamplug",
> 	"globalscale,guruplug",
> 	"dlink,dns-320",
> 	"dlink,dns-325",
> 	"iom,iconnect",
> 	"raidsonic,ib-nas62x0",
> 	"qnap,ts219",
> 	"seagate,dockstar",
> 	"seagate,goflexnet",
> 	"buffalo,lsxl",
> 	"iom,ix2-200",
> 	"keymile,km_kirkwood",
> 	"lacie,cloudbox",
> 	"lacie,inetspace_v2",
> 	"lacie,netspace_lite_v2",
> 	"lacie,netspace_max_v2",
> 	"lacie,netspace_mini_v2",
> 	"lacie,netspace_v2",
> 	"mpl,cec4",
> 	"netgear,readynas-duo-v2",
> 	"plathome,openblocks-a6",
> 	"usi,topkick",
> 	"zyxel,nsa310",
> 	NULL
> };
>
> in that file. I think it does not make sense that we need to list
> boards here that can be described fully by DT. When adding such a
> board in the future, you will still need to adapt board-dt.c.

True, will remove the redundant compatible strings for v5.
Actually, if I am not missing something, all compatible strings except
"marvell,kirkwood" are redundant as long as board.dts append it
correctly.

> Should we remove the boards that you removed above here as well and
> add
>
> 	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6192",
> 	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6281",
> 	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6282",
> 	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6283",
> 	"marvell,kirkwood-88f6702",
> 	"marvell,kirkwood-98DX4122",
>
> or even just state "marvell,kirkwood"?

I would stick with "marvell,kirkwood" only. This is SoC init code and
we do not distinguish variants here at all.

Sebastian