Dear Bo Shen, On 17.05.2012 03:19, Bo Shen wrote: > On 5/16/2012 18:42, Andreas Bießmann wrote: >> Dear Bo Shen, >> >> On 16.05.2012 04:16, Bo Shen wrote:
<snip> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_AT91_LEGACY >>> - <snip remove of legacy interface> >>> - >> I think this should be done in a separate patch (series). There are a >> lot of CONFIG_AT91_LEGACY left somewhere in the code. Please read >> doc/README.at91-soc; I think step 4 is reached so step 5 should follow. > > Would this be dealt one by one, while not a series? Well it must not be a series of patches send at once. This can also be done step by step e.g. by first cleaning up atmel_pio and doing other parts later (I think this should/could be documented in the doc/README.at91-soc). This should be carefully considered because you may break some boards. Beware! I do not really know if my statement 'step 4 of doc/README.at91-soc is reached' is correct, so this needs to be proven. If you have proven that removing legacy interface of atmel_pio is ok, I would like to see another patch for that task (this patch is 'Enable new feature ..' not 'remove legacy interface ..'). Some additional words on this part of the patch. I think (and this is my personal view) we should not expand legacy interfaces at all, instead we should try to remove them sooner rather than later. Additionally I think (again my personal view) it is not your responsibility to clean this up _now_ because you touch this file. In my opinion it is ok to just add the new interface and leave the old one as is. Maybe someone else (Albert?) can comment on this? best regards Andreas Bießmann _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
