Re: [PATCH] watchdog: Remove iop_wdt

[Guenter Roeck]

On 11/19/19 1:40 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 3:08 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 11/18/19 2:04 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > Commit 59d3ae9a5bf6 ("ARM: remove Intel iop33x and iop13xx support")
> > > removed support for some old platforms. Given this driver depends on
> > > a now removed platform, just remove the driver.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Found this while reviewing config options. Not sure if this was kept
> > > around for other reasons or just missed.
> > > ---
> > >    drivers/watchdog/Kconfig   |  16 ---
> > >    drivers/watchdog/Makefile  |   1 -
> > >    drivers/watchdog/iop_wdt.c | 249 -------------------------------------
> > >    3 files changed, 266 deletions(-)
> > >    delete mode 100644 drivers/watchdog/iop_wdt.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> > > index 58e7c100b6ad..fef9078a44b6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> > > @@ -554,22 +554,6 @@ config PNX4008_WATCHDOG
> > >
> > >          Say N if you are unsure.
> > >
> > > -config IOP_WATCHDOG
> > > -     tristate "IOP Watchdog"
> > > -     depends on ARCH_IOP13XX
> > > -     select WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT if (ARCH_IOP32X || ARCH_IOP33X)
> >
> > This is a bit confusing, but it suggests that the watchdog may also work
> > with ARCH_IOP32X, which is still supported. I don't know anything about
> > those architectures, but I hesitate to have the driver removed unless
> > we have confirmation that it won't work with ARCH_IOP32X.
> > Maybe the dependency needs to be updated instead ?
>
> See commit ec2e32ca661e ("watchdog: iop_wdt only builds for
> mach-iop13xx") from 2014: the watdog hardware exists on iop32x
> but the driver only successfully built on iop13xx, which is now gone.
>
> Adding Russell (who said he still uses iop32x hardware) and Lennert
> (who is still listed in the MAINTAINERS file, but previously said he
> does not use it any more) to Cc. If neither of them see a reason to
> keep the driver, I'd say we can remove it.
>
> It seems unlikely that anyone wants to revive the driver if they have
> not done it yet, and if they want to do it later, it is barely harder to revert
> the removal than to fix the compile-time problem.

Good point, especially since apparently no one cared for five years.

Guenter