[RFC][PATCH] Disintegrate sharpsl_param.c

On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 19:27 +0200, dromede at gmail.com wrote:

From: Marko Katic <dromede.gmail.com>

I recently tried running 3.6-rc2 kernel on my Sharp Zaurus C-1000. It 
hanged almost immediately after uncompressing the kernel. I tracked the
problem down to a single line in arch/arm/common/sharpsl_param.c:

memcpy(&sharpsl_param, (void *)PARAM_BASE, sizeof(struct sharpsl_param_info));

Commenting out the line makes the kernel boot just fine. This left me
wondering whether sharpsl_param.c is actually needed. Here's a comment
from sharpsl_param.c that describes what sharpsl_param.c actually does:

Sharp went to the trouble of saving these values into the hardware and
passing them into the drivers. They're basically used by the LCD
initialisation code from what I remember. I don't remember what the
risks are of incorrect values.

 So sharpsl_save_param() is supposed to fill the sharpsl_param_info struct
 with various parameters or fill some of the struct fields with -1. 
 I found only four drivers that use some of these
 parameters (only two parameters are used by these drivers, comadj and phadadj). 
 These drivers are:
 
 drivers/video/backlight/corgi_lcd.c
 drivers/video/backlight/locomolcd.c
 drivers/video/backlight/tosa_bl.c
 drivers/video/backlight/tosa_lcd.c
 
 These drivers also have default values when comadj or phadadj == -1.
 I checked what values are actually contained in this struct in
 earlier kernels. 3.2.24 kernel is the latest one i know of where
 sharpsl_save_param() works properly. And it also has these fields initialised
 to -1.

What values was it loading from the bootloader? Or are you saying that
it wasn't finding the bootloader information and therefore just using -1
for everything?
 

 So it seems to me that sharpsl_param.c is redundant as it currently only  
 serves to assign -1 to a few variables. And drivers that use these variables
 then handle -1 with assigning default values.

Its not redundant, it sounds like its just broken at some point, at
least on the platform you tested and nobody has noticed/cared. The
better solution would be to fix it. Obviously its much easier to delete
the code though.

Cheers,

Richard