On Thursday 04 March 2021 14:29:46 Stefan Roese wrote: > On 03.03.21 11:21, Pali Rohár wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I see in more U-Boot files check for ifdef CONFIG_ARMADA_39X but I do > > not see that CONFIG_ARMADA_39X could be defined in some header or board > > code. > > > > So does it mean that all code under ifdef CONFIG_ARMADA_39X is dead? Has > > U-Boot support for Marvell A39X SoC? > > > > If it is really dead code, should not be ifdef CONFIG_ARMADA_39X > > completely removed? > > Frankly, I don't remember the history here. Did you look into the git > history to see, where this Kconfig option was introduced?
There is no Kconfig option for ARMADA_39X. Only C source files are checking if CONFIG_ARMADA_39X is defined or not. But there is no code which can define CONFIG_ARMADA_39X, neither header file nor Kconfig. That is suspicious for me. > It could very well be the case, that this was introduced "by accident" > by including some Marvell code without taking it out. AFAIK, we are not > supporting any Armada 39x in mainline right now. So it looks like that somebody introduced code #ifdef CONFIG_ARMADA_39X on more places "by accident". For example in commit edb470253346f4a882ba9e891c8b102ce388b9cc were added some these ifdefs and commit was authorized by you. So I thought that you would know more... So if mainline U-Boot does not support Armada 39x, does it make sense to remove all code hidden under CONFIG_ARMADA_39X? Following command could do it: git ls-tree -r --name-only HEAD | xargs unifdef -m -UCONFIG_ARMADA_39X
