[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cpf327z4gotr3keocxe2pwhwpyao5abg6izt332r5w3ulfz45y@wdzmqwujsg2t>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 00:00:12 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: davinci: kill platform data
Hi Bartosz,
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 11:31:23AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 1:02 AM Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > -/* default platform data to use if not supplied in the platform_device */
> > > > > -static struct davinci_i2c_platform_data davinci_i2c_platform_data_default = {
> > > > > - .bus_freq = 100,
> > > > > - .bus_delay = 0,
> > > >
> > > > what happened to bus_delay?
> > > >
> > >
> > > bus_delay is not set by means other than platform data and it defaults
> > > to 0 so it's safe to just remove it.
> >
> > yes, but how is it related to this patch? Can we put it on a
> > different patch?
> >
>
> No, why? This patch removes platform data and all bits and pieces
> associated with it. Splitting it into two just to first remove
> bus_delay and then the rest doesn't make much sense IMO. The argument
> that it's already not used would be incorrect as it IS used by
> platform data (even though it itself is no longer defined anywhere).
> I'd keep it as is.
yeah... merged to i2c/i2c-host.
Thanks,
Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists