linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: lantiq: remove unused function declaration

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]

Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 10:26:54 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <olek2@...pl>
Cc:     linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: lantiq: remove unused function declaration

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:03:28PM +0200, Aleksander Jan Bajkowski wrote:
> The removed function declaration is a leftover of the old gphy firmware
> loader, that has been removed in d5103604f78e1afc29e586785af540c82b573f3a.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <olek2@...pl>
> ---
>  arch/mips/include/asm/mach-lantiq/xway/lantiq_soc.h | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-lantiq/xway/lantiq_soc.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-lantiq/xway/lantiq_soc.h
> index 4790cfa190d6..c2e0acb755cd 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-lantiq/xway/lantiq_soc.h
> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-lantiq/xway/lantiq_soc.h
> @@ -94,9 +94,6 @@ extern __iomem void *ltq_cgu_membase;
>  #define LTQ_MPS_BASE_ADDR	(KSEG1 + 0x1F107000)
>  #define LTQ_MPS_CHIPID		((u32 *)(LTQ_MPS_BASE_ADDR + 0x0344))
>  
> -/* allow booting xrx200 phys */
> -int xrx200_gphy_boot(struct device *dev, unsigned int id, dma_addr_t dev_addr);
> -
>  /* request a non-gpio and set the PIO config */
>  #define PMU_PPE			 BIT(13)
>  extern void ltq_pmu_enable(unsigned int module);
> -- 
> 2.30.2

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]