linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] MIPS: loongson32: Remove dma.h and nand.h

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2023 10:21:15 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Keguang Zhang <keguang.zhang@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] MIPS: loongson32: Remove dma.h and nand.h

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 09:35:05PM +0800, Keguang Zhang wrote:
> Since commit 7b3415f581c7 ("MIPS: Loongson32: Remove
> unused platform devices"), struct plat_ls1x_dma and plat_ls1x_nand
> are unused. Then, dma.h and nand.h are useless.
> Therefore, remove these useless header files.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Keguang Zhang <keguang.zhang@...il.com>
> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@...aro.org>
> ---
> V2 -> V3: Fix the build error
>           Add Reviewed-by tag from Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
> V1 -> V2: Remove include of dma.h and nand.h
>           Update the commit message
> ---
>  arch/mips/include/asm/mach-loongson32/dma.h   | 21 ---------------
>  arch/mips/include/asm/mach-loongson32/nand.h  | 26 -------------------
>  .../include/asm/mach-loongson32/platform.h    |  3 ---
>  arch/mips/loongson32/common/platform.c        |  2 --
>  arch/mips/loongson32/ls1b/board.c             |  2 --
>  5 files changed, 54 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 arch/mips/include/asm/mach-loongson32/dma.h
>  delete mode 100644 arch/mips/include/asm/mach-loongson32/nand.h

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 ]