[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/fsl-corenet: remove dead variant symbols

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 15, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

> On 08/15/2012 09:21 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:45 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> 
>>> On 08/14/2012 04:31 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> These are not supported as individual build targets, but instead
>>>>> are supported by another target.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The dead p4040 defines in particular had bitrotted significantly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/Makefile         |    3 --
>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/config_mpc85xx.h |   68 ++---------------------------
>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/immap_85xx.h     |    2 +-
>>>>> drivers/net/fm/Makefile                   |    1 -
>>>>> include/configs/P2041RDB.h                |    2 +-
>>>>> include/configs/P4080DS.h                 |    1 +
>>>>> include/configs/P5020DS.h                 |    2 +-
>>>>> 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> I had put these in for customer specific boards... 
>>> 
>>> Why wouldn't they use the p2041/p4080/p5020 symbol?  The point is we
>>> support both at runtime.
>>> 
>>>> I understand we might have bit rot, but I guess I'd rather we added:
>>>> 
>>>> P2040RDB, P4040DS, and P5010DS to boards.cfg to test these SoC builds than remove the code.
>>> 
>>> I disagree.  That adds extra builds to test and maintain for no real gain.
>> 
>> It was an attempt to try and reduce some confusion for customers if they happen to utilize a P4040/P2040/P5010.
> 
> Well, I did add comments saying "this also supports <foo>".  I think
> documentation is the way to deal with this, or maybe a target name alias
> mechanism if we're really having problems with customers unable to
> figure this out.
> 
> If we do add separate builds I predict they will receive approximately
> zero test coverage beyond the occasional (now slightly slower) MAKEALL.
> 
>> We have the same issue with P1/P2 SoCs and single core vs dual core devices.
> 
> I'd be happy to see those extra builds go away too.
> 
> -Scott

Ok, I'll bite.

Acked-by: Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org>

- k