Stefan Schmidt <ste...@datenfreihafen.org> writes: > Hello. > > On 24.11.2016 17:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> The camera_supply_dummy_device definition is shared between a780 and a910, >> but only provided when the first is enabled and fails to build for a >> configuration with only a910: >> >> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:1097:3: error: 'camera_supply_dummy_device' >> undeclared here (not in a function) >> >> This moves the definition into its own section. >> >> Fixes: 6c1b417adc8f ("ARM: pxa: ezx: use the new pxa_camera platform_data") >> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c | 56 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > > I wonder what we should do with ezx.c. > > As far as I know neither Daniel nor Harald or myself are doing anything > with this devices anymore. Besides a basic compile test having an ack or > reviewed by from our side is a bit worthless. :/ > > I should still have some of these phones around in a box somewhere. If > there is someone with a good motivation and time to take over on this > platform we will find a way to get the person this devices. > > Any takers? Robert? I guess you are already overloaded but you might > also have an interest. Worth asking :) Oh yes, I'm very interested in your box. Besides I really like old platforms :)
> In the case nobody wants to pick up here what would you consider the > bets way forward? I could send a patch removing ezx platform support > from the kernel (basically ezx.c plus build support) or I can send a > patch marking it at least orphan in MAINTAINERS. Let me know what you think. > > Daniel, Harald, if one of you is still interested in these and what to > pick up the work again, please speak up now. :) Unless another maintainer steps in, you can submit a patch to transfer the maintainance onto me, and we'll see off mailing lists how we could arange the boards transfer. Cheers. -- Robert