2023-07-12 04:39:14

by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID

IPQ5019 SoC is never productized. So lets drop it.

Signed-off-by: Kathiravan T <[email protected]>
---
Changes in V2:
- Updated the commit message with the precise information for
dropping this ID

include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
index bcbe9ee2cdaf..179dd56b2d95 100644
--- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
+++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
@@ -250,7 +250,6 @@
#define QCOM_ID_QRU1000 539
#define QCOM_ID_QDU1000 545
#define QCOM_ID_QDU1010 587
-#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019 569
#define QCOM_ID_QRU1032 588
#define QCOM_ID_QRU1052 589
#define QCOM_ID_QRU1062 590
--
2.34.1



2023-07-14 16:18:33

by Rob Herring

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:49:11AM +0530, Kathiravan T wrote:
> IPQ5019 SoC is never productized. So lets drop it.

You need to remove the user before removing the definition.

>
> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan T <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes in V2:
> - Updated the commit message with the precise information for
> dropping this ID
>
> include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> index bcbe9ee2cdaf..179dd56b2d95 100644
> --- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> @@ -250,7 +250,6 @@
> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1000 539
> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1000 545
> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1010 587
> -#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019 569
> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1032 588
> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1052 589
> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1062 590
> --
> 2.34.1
>

2023-07-15 15:49:33

by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID


On 7/14/2023 9:29 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:49:11AM +0530, Kathiravan T wrote:
>> IPQ5019 SoC is never productized. So lets drop it.
> You need to remove the user before removing the definition.


Rob, Currently there are no users for this macro.


>
>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan T <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Changes in V2:
>> - Updated the commit message with the precise information for
>> dropping this ID
>>
>> include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>> index bcbe9ee2cdaf..179dd56b2d95 100644
>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>> @@ -250,7 +250,6 @@
>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1000 539
>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1000 545
>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1010 587
>> -#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019 569
>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1032 588
>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1052 589
>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1062 590
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>

2023-07-22 04:59:54

by Bjorn Andersson

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID

On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 08:41:56PM +0530, Kathiravan T wrote:
>
> On 7/14/2023 9:29 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:49:11AM +0530, Kathiravan T wrote:
> > > IPQ5019 SoC is never productized. So lets drop it.
> > You need to remove the user before removing the definition.
>
> Rob, Currently there are no users for this macro.
>

But you're removing a user in patch 2? Or am I reading that incorrectly?

Regards,
Bjorn

2023-07-23 14:07:25

by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID


On 7/22/2023 9:32 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 08:41:56PM +0530, Kathiravan T wrote:
>> On 7/14/2023 9:29 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:49:11AM +0530, Kathiravan T wrote:
>>>> IPQ5019 SoC is never productized. So lets drop it.
>>> You need to remove the user before removing the definition.
>> Rob, Currently there are no users for this macro.
>>
> But you're removing a user in patch 2? Or am I reading that incorrectly?


My bad. Sorry, I misunderstood the Rob's statement. Let me send the V3
in the correct order.


>
> Regards,
> Bjorn