Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-197207-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 17:58:34 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, johan@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] mfd: lm3533: Hide legacy platform data in the
 driver
Message-ID: <20240531165834.GA1204315@google.com>
References: <20240508104848.846580-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20240508104848.846580-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20240531150048.GO1005600@google.com>
 <Zlnn89KPSHSCp3Bh@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20240531155445.GS1005600@google.com>
 <Zln9lRvKJYwlSM3l@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Zln9lRvKJYwlSM3l@smile.fi.intel.com>

On Fri, 31 May 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 04:54:45PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 May 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 04:00:48PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 08 May 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > First of all, there is no user for the platform data in the kernel.
> > > > > Second, it needs a lot of updates to follow the modern standards
> > > > > of the kernel, including proper Device Tree bindings and device
> > > > > property handling.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For now, just hide the legacy platform data in the driver's code.
> > > > 
> > > > Why not just rip it out entirely?
> > > 
> > > You mean the driver?
> > 
> > The unused platform data.
> 
> Good question. In any case these drivers are non-functional anyway without OOT
> board code. If we rip out the main platform data completely, the logical following
> question arises: why do we need the per-device platform data? If we rip that out,
> we basically make non-functional driver a 100% dead code. Hence what you propose
> mostly equals to ripping out the drivers completely.
> 
> TL;DR: with the main platform data being ripped out the driver code will be in
> inconsistent state.

What do you think Johan?  Do you see any reason to keep it around?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]