Dead code CONFIG_ARMADA_39X?

[Stefan Roese]

On 04.03.21 14:41, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 04 March 2021 14:29:46 Stefan Roese wrote:
>> On 03.03.21 11:21, Pali Rohár wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I see in more U-Boot files check for ifdef CONFIG_ARMADA_39X but I do
>>> not see that CONFIG_ARMADA_39X could be defined in some header or board
>>> code.
>>>
>>> So does it mean that all code under ifdef CONFIG_ARMADA_39X is dead? Has
>>> U-Boot support for Marvell A39X SoC?
>>>
>>> If it is really dead code, should not be ifdef CONFIG_ARMADA_39X
>>> completely removed?
>>
>> Frankly, I don't remember the history here. Did you look into the git
>> history to see, where this Kconfig option was introduced?
> 
> There is no Kconfig option for ARMADA_39X.
> 
> Only C source files are checking if CONFIG_ARMADA_39X is defined or not.
> But there is no code which can define CONFIG_ARMADA_39X, neither header
> file nor Kconfig.
> 
> That is suspicious for me.

I agree. Thanks for looking into it.

>> It could very well be the case, that this was introduced "by accident"
>> by including some Marvell code without taking it out. AFAIK, we are not
>> supporting any Armada 39x in mainline right now.
> 
> So it looks like that somebody introduced code #ifdef CONFIG_ARMADA_39X
> on more places "by accident".
> 
> For example in commit edb470253346f4a882ba9e891c8b102ce388b9cc were
> added some these ifdefs and commit was authorized by you. So I thought
> that you would know more...

Autsch. That was in 2015 - sorry my memory does not cover history
that long (anymore). ;)

> So if mainline U-Boot does not support Armada 39x, does it make sense to
> remove all code hidden under CONFIG_ARMADA_39X? Following command could
> do it:
> 
>    git ls-tree -r --name-only HEAD | xargs unifdef -m -UCONFIG_ARMADA_39X

I agree in general. But would it make syncing with Marvell original
code  more difficult?

Thanks,
Stefan