Message-ID: <90dd1f841e7941d8b5931ef68cd6d14e.sboyd@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <CAMhs-H-y6TsSoKsJzM0gkFk6wx7xNigXKJb7wm8rBzrigtJANg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20230320161823.1424278-1-sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> <20230320161823.1424278-8-sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> <966523bee1d28d546969a24eff60d315.sboyd@kernel.org> <CAMhs-H-y6TsSoKsJzM0gkFk6wx7xNigXKJb7wm8rBzrigtJANg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] mips: ralink: remove clock related function prototypes
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, john@phrozen.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, p.zabel@pengutronix.de,
        mturquette@baylibre.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, arinc.unal@arinc9.com
To:     Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 14:21:37 -0700
User-Agent: alot/0.10
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Sergio Paracuellos (2023-03-20 13:17:47)
> Hi Stephen,
>=20
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 8:38=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> w=
rote:
> >
> > Quoting Sergio Paracuellos (2023-03-20 09:18:20)
> > > Clock related code has been removed from 'arch/mips/ralink' folder an=
d put
> > > into drivers space. Hence remove clock related prototypes which are n=
ot
> > > used anymore.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/mips/ralink/common.h | 3 ---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/mips/ralink/common.h b/arch/mips/ralink/common.h
> > > index 87fc16751281..fcdfc9dc6210 100644
> > > --- a/arch/mips/ralink/common.h
> > > +++ b/arch/mips/ralink/common.h
> > > @@ -23,9 +23,6 @@ extern struct ralink_soc_info soc_info;
> > >
> > >  extern void ralink_of_remap(void);
> > >
> > > -extern void ralink_clk_init(void);
> >
> > Why isn't this removed in the patch that removes the function?
>=20
> Because the function exists for all the SoCs code and there are
> several patches removing it; one per SoC, so I decided to remove this
> at the end. Should I squash all patches together instead?

No. But you should squash this with whatever patch removes the last one.