[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d74205d4-f8c1-1151-413b-e1a80aa6b74c@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:23:34 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
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>,
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 13:22, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> While one can argue that nvmem_device_cell_read/write() may be needed
> in some strange corner case now, once we add the cell lookup API, we
> can safely remove it and force users to do the right thing.
I agree!
I don't have very strong reason to stop removing
nvmem_device_cell_read/write().
Lets see how it turns out!
I would still want nvmem config to have ability to setup static cell list.
--srini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists