On Wed, 2016-01-13 at 17:39 +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 13/01/16 17:10, Russell Currey wrote:
> > "p5ioc2 is used by approximately 2 machines in the world, and has never
> > ever been a supported configuration."
> >
> > The code for p5ioc2 is essentially unused and complicates what is already
> > a very complicated codebase. Its removal is essentially a "free win" in
> > the effort to simplify the powernv PCI code.
> >
> > In addition, support for p5ioc2 has been dropped from skiboot. There's no
> > reason to keep it around in the kernel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <rus...@russell.cc>
>
> Doesn't apply cleanly on next, but that's minor.
Going to do a V2 to address your other comment, so I might as well fix the next
issue.
>
> > @@ -117,11 +115,6 @@ struct pnv_phb {
> >
> > union {
> > struct {
> > - struct iommu_table iommu_table;
> > - struct iommu_table_group table_group;
> > - } p5ioc2;
> > -
> > - struct {
> > /* Global bridge info */
> > unsigned int total_pe;
> > unsigned int reserved_pe;
>
> Given this leaves struct ioda as the only member of the union, do we
> want to get rid of the union?
>
Probably. I was going to leave that for future patches (which will be a proper
refactoring rather than a pure removal), but given it makes no difference I
should just get rid of it now.
Thanks for the review.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
