Hi Kukjin,
Shouldn't there be some deprecation period for whole s5pc100 support removal ?
It looks a bit rude to me that suddenly whole support for the SoC is vanished.
I know at least one active user of mainline FIMC driver @ s5pc100.
On 05/12/2011 03:11 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> According to removing ARCH_S5PC100, we don't need to support
> fimc for S5PC100.
>
> Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawro...@samsung.com>
> Cc: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com>
> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene....@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-core.c | 14 --------------
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-core.c
> b/drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-core.c
> index dc91a85..89d59d6 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-core.c
> @@ -1871,17 +1871,6 @@ static struct samsung_fimc_variant
> fimc2_variant_exynos4 = {
> .pix_limit = &s5p_pix_limit[3],
> };
>
> -/* S5PC100 */
> -static struct samsung_fimc_driverdata fimc_drvdata_s5p = {
> - .variant = {
> - [0] = &fimc0_variant_s5p,
> - [1] = &fimc0_variant_s5p,
> - [2] = &fimc2_variant_s5p,
> - },
> - .num_entities = 3,
> - .lclk_frequency = 133000000UL,
> -};
> -
> /* S5PV210, S5PC110 */
> static struct samsung_fimc_driverdata fimc_drvdata_s5pv210 = {
> .variant = {
> @@ -1907,9 +1896,6 @@ static struct samsung_fimc_driverdata
> fimc_drvdata_exynos4 = {
>
> static struct platform_device_id fimc_driver_ids[] = {
> {
> - .name = "s5p-fimc",
> - .driver_data = (unsigned long)&fimc_drvdata_s5p,
> - }, {
> .name = "s5pv210-fimc",
> .driver_data = (unsigned long)&fimc_drvdata_s5pv210,
> }, {
--
Sylwester Nawrocki
Samsung Poland R&D Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
