Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <7ab4950ea08e89fe0481a08a8b49de4291b9451f.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] ksz884x: remove unused #defines
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Date:   Thu, 06 Apr 2023 22:06:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <ZC7vgRFmqAjGQyss@kernel.org>
References: <20230405-ksz884x-unused-code-v1-0-a3349811d5ef@kernel.org>
         <20230405-ksz884x-unused-code-v1-2-a3349811d5ef@kernel.org>
         <454a61709e442f717fbde4b0ebb8b4c3fdfb515e.camel@redhat.com>
         <20230406090017.0fc0ae34@kernel.org> <ZC7vgRFmqAjGQyss@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2023-04-06 at 18:12 +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:00:17AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 15:37:36 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-04-05 at 10:39 +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > Remove unused #defines from ksz884x driver.
> > > >=20
> > > > These #defines may have some value in documenting the hardware.
> > > > But that information may be accessed via scm history. =20
> > >=20
> > > I personally have a slight preference for keeping these definitions i=
n
> > > the sources (for doc purposes), but it's not a big deal.=20
> > >=20
> > > Any 3rd opinion more then welcome!
> >=20
> > I had the same reaction, FWIW.
> >=20
> > Cleaning up unused "code" macros, pure software stuff makes perfect
> > sense. But I feel a bit ambivalent about removing definitions of HW
> > registers and bits.
>=20
> I guess that it two down-votes for removing the #defines.
>=20
> Would it be acceptable if I reworked the series to only remove
> the dead code - which would leave only subset of patch 3/3 ?

I would be fine with that.

Thanks!

Paolo