[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec2ba4af-46cf-2025-1670-cbed366d0f15@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:47:19 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Alban Bedel <albeu@...e.fr>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] nvmem: remove unused APIs
On 10/09/18 12:31, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> About that: there are no users of nvmem_device_cell_read/write()
> currently and with the new API I'm not sure this is still needed. Are
> you alright with removing those two?
Why do you want to remove them? Other than reason of no users.
All it boils down to if we support device based apis using cell info or
not?
IMO, I see no harm in leaving these apis as it is, unless there is a
strong reason to do so.
thanks,
srini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists