linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: #if 0 out ISI code for AT91SAM9263

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <538EDC98.2080700@atmel.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Jun 2014 16:45:12 +0800
From:	Josh Wu <josh.wu@...el.com>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
	Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: #if 0 out ISI code for AT91SAM9263

Hi, Paul

On 5/23/2014 7:50 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
> ---
> 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.

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
>
> 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(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c
> index 43d53d6156dd..30af3048ade5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c
> @@ -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
>   
>   

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/