Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: mtx-1: Drop au1000.h header inclusion

From: Florian Fainelli
Date: Thu Dec 12 2019 - 13:28:56 EST

On 12/12/19 10:19 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 07:38:29PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 12/11/2019 5:35 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 12/11/19 1:02 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> Including au1000.h from the machine specific header directory prevents
>>>> this driver from being built on any other platforms (MIPS included).
>>>> Since we do not use any definitions, drop it.
>>>> Reported-by: Denis Efremov <efremov@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> Â drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c | 2 --
>>>> Â 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c
>>>> index 25a92857b217..aeca22f7450e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/mtx-1_wdt.c
>>>> @@ -41,8 +41,6 @@
>>>> Â #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>>>> Â #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>>>> Â -#include <asm/mach-au1x00/au1000.h>
>>>> -
>>>> Â #define MTX1_WDT_INTERVALÂÂÂ (5 * HZ)
>>>> Â Â static int ticks = 100 * HZ;
>>> Given that this is nothing but yet another gpio watchdog driver, I'd
>>> personally rather have it merged with gpio_wdt.c. On a higher level,
>>> cleaning up old-style watchdog drivers, without converting them to
>>> using the watchdog core, is a waste of time.
>> If that makes you feel any better, I was not planning on going further
>> than that, and yes, removing this driver and using gpio_wdt.c would be
>> the way to go, this driver greatly predates gpio_wdt.c and I have since
>> then not had access to my MTX-1 platforms which is why this did not
>> happen. We can attempt a "blind conversion" without testing, but what
>> good would that make, not sure.
> It sounds like this is a purely cosmetical change to improve test build
> coverage for a more or less obsolete driver. No, that doesn't make me feel
> better; I get way too many of those lately. Worse, some of those test build
> "improvements" actually end up breaking real builds, which then costs me
> and others even more time to track down.
> We should really discourage that. Is there some challenge going on somewhere,
> along the line of "improve test build coverage" ?

Not really, the only challenge would be access to the original hardware
in order to remove the driver and migrate over to gpio_wdt, which is low
risk, but the watchdog on that platform has bitten me before.