CONFIG_FB_VIA_CAMERA doesn't exist in Kconfig, therefore removing
all references to it from the source.

Signed-off-by: Christian Dietrich <qy03fugy@stud.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
---
 drivers/video/via/accel.c |   16 ----------------
 include/linux/via-core.h  |    5 +----
 2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/video/via/accel.c b/drivers/video/via/accel.c
index e44893e..43d4f30 100644
--- a/drivers/video/via/accel.c
+++ b/drivers/video/via/accel.c
@@ -370,22 +370,6 @@ int viafb_init_engine(struct fb_info *info)
 	viapar->shared->vq_vram_addr = viapar->fbmem_free;
 	viapar->fbmem_used += VQ_SIZE;
 
-#if defined(CONFIG_FB_VIA_CAMERA) || defined(CONFIG_FB_VIA_CAMERA_MODULE)
-	/*
-	 * Set aside a chunk of framebuffer memory for the camera
-	 * driver.  Someday this driver probably needs a proper allocator
-	 * for fbmem; for now, we just have to do this before the
-	 * framebuffer initializes itself.
-	 *
-	 * As for the size: the engine can handle three frames,
-	 * 16 bits deep, up to VGA resolution.
-	 */
-	viapar->shared->vdev->camera_fbmem_size = 3*VGA_HEIGHT*VGA_WIDTH*2;
-	viapar->fbmem_free -= viapar->shared->vdev->camera_fbmem_size;
-	viapar->fbmem_used += viapar->shared->vdev->camera_fbmem_size;
-	viapar->shared->vdev->camera_fbmem_offset = viapar->fbmem_free;
-#endif
-
 	/* Init AGP and VQ regs */
 	switch (chip_name) {
 	case UNICHROME_K8M890:
diff --git a/include/linux/via-core.h b/include/linux/via-core.h
index 7ffb521..7fc611e 100644
--- a/include/linux/via-core.h
+++ b/include/linux/via-core.h
@@ -81,10 +81,7 @@ struct viafb_dev {
 	unsigned long fbmem_start;
 	long fbmem_len;
 	void __iomem *fbmem;
-#if defined(CONFIG_FB_VIA_CAMERA) || defined(CONFIG_FB_VIA_CAMERA_MODULE)
-	long camera_fbmem_offset;
-	long camera_fbmem_size;
-#endif
+
 	/*
 	 * The MMIO region for device registers.
 	 */
-- 
1.7.0.4

--

[ message continues ]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:59:41 +0200

The driver using this option has been posted to the lists a few times.
I have been unforgivably slow in dealing with some review comments, and
so missed the 2.6.36 merge window.  I don't plan to let that happen
again, though.  So my preference would be to leave this code in place;
if it goes away, I'll just have to put it back.

Thanks,

jon
--

[ message continues ]