On Mon, 9 Sept 2024 at 18:25, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > On 9/9/24 15:44, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Sept 2024 at 14:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 3/9/24 18:06, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>> This patchset removes the various Arm machines which we deprecated > >>> for the 9.0 release and are therefore allowed to remove for the 9.2 > >>> release: > >>> akita, borzoi, cheetah, connex, mainstone, n800, n810, > >>> spitz, terrier, tosa, verdex, z2 > >> > >>> The series includes removal of some code which while not strictly > >>> specific to these machines was in practice used only by them: > >>> * the OneNAND flash memory device > >>> * the PCMCIA subsystem > >>> * the MUSB USB2.0 OTG USB controller chip (hcd-musb) > >> > >>> thanks > >>> -- PMM > >>> > >>> Peter Maydell (53): > >>> hw/input: Drop ADS7846 device > >>> hw/adc: Remove MAX111X device > >>> hw/gpio: Remove MAX7310 device > >>> hw/input: Remove tsc2005 touchscreen controller > >>> hw/input: Remove tsc210x device > >>> hw/rtc: Remove twl92230 device > >>> hw/input: Remove lm832x device > >>> hw/usb: Remove tusb6010 USB controller > >>> hw/usb: Remove MUSB USB host controller > >> > >> Some of these devices are user-creatable and only rely on a bus > >> (not a particular removed machine), so could potentially be used > >> on other maintained machines which expose a similar bus. > > > > Which ones in particular? Almost all of them are sysbus. > > At least one of them that I looked at (lm832x) is an I2C > > device but it also requires the board to wire up a GPIO line > > and to call a specific C function to inject key events, so it's > > not actually generally usable. > > > >> We don't have in-tree (tests/) examples, but I wonder if it is OK > >> to remove them without first explicitly deprecating them in > >> docs/about/deprecated.rst. I wouldn't surprise users when 9.2 is > >> release. Maybe this isn't an issue, but I prefer to mention it > >> now to be sure. > > > > I think this is unlikely to be a problem, but if you have > > a specific device you think might be a problem we can > > look at whether it seems likely (e.g. whether a web search > > turns up users using it in odd ways). > > I don't have specific example and am happy to remove these > legacy devices. > > I'm wondering more generically about removing user-creatable & > on-bus devices, when explicit use is removed (deprecated board > removed), but we can still use them elsewhere. IMHO for clarity > in the future we should list them in deprecated.rst along with > some lines like "this device is explicitly used by the FOO machine which > is being deprecated; if you want to keep them, provide test cases".
Yes, I think that would be a good idea going forward. I didn't realise in this case that some of the boards used devices that were i2c or whatever and at least nominally usable elsewhere. -- PMM
