Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:44:29 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:     Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn@helgaas.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] net: fddi: skfp: Use PCI generic definitions
 instead of private duplicates
Message-ID: <20190621164429.GA187016@google.com>
References: <20190621094607.15011-1-puranjay12@gmail.com>
 <20190621162024.53620dd9@alans-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190621162024.53620dd9@alans-desktop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:20:24PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:16:04 +0530
> Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > This patch series removes the private duplicates of PCI definitions in
> > favour of generic definitions defined in pci_regs.h.
> 
> Why bother ? It's an ancient obsolete card ?

That's a fair question.

Is there anything that would indicate that "this file is obsolete and
problems shouldn't be fixed"?  Nobody wants to waste time on things
that don't need to be fixed, but I don't know how to tell if something
is obsolete.

My naive assumption is that if something is in the tree, it's fair
game for fixes and cleanups.

Bjorn