[PATCH 0/8] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG_8xx

[PATCH 0/8] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG_8xx

[Christophe Leroy]

Two config options exist to define powerpc MPC8xx:
* CONFIG_PPC_8xx
* CONFIG_8xx
In addition, CONFIG_PPC_8xx also defines CONFIG_CPM1 as
communication co-processor

arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype has contained the following
comment about CONFIG_8xx item for some years:
"# this is temp to handle compat with arch=ppc"

It looks like not many places still have that old CONFIG_8xx used,
so it is likely to be a good time to get rid of it completely ?

Patchset is composed of the following patches:
[1/8] powerpc: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
[2/8] um: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
[3/8] video: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
[4/8] net: freescale: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
[5/8] tty: cpm_uart: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_CPM1
[6/8] mtd: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
[7/8] isdn: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
[8/8] powerpc: get rid of CONFIG_8xx

All but the last one are independant and can be applied in any
order. Only the 8th one requires the first 7 patches to be applied.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>

---
 arch/powerpc/Kconfig                             | 10 +++++-----
 arch/powerpc/Makefile                            |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile                       |  4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/boot/util.S                         |  6 +++---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/cache.h                 |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h              |  4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/fs_pd.h                 |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc32.h         |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc_asm.h               |  4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h                   | 10 +++++-----
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/timex.h                 |  4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile                     |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c                   |  4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c                        |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/kernel/kgdb.c                       |  4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S                    |  4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c                      |  6 +++---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/gettimeofday.S        |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c                          |  4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/mm/init_32.c                        |  4 ++--
 arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c                            |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_decl.h                       | 12 ++++++------
 arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_nohash_low.S                 |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/platforms/8xx/Kconfig               |  3 +--
 arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype           |  7 +------
 arch/powerpc/sysdev/Makefile                     |  2 +-
 arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c                    |  3 ++-
 arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.h                    |  3 ++-
 arch/powerpc/xmon/xmon.c                         |  2 +-
 arch/um/sys-ppc/misc.S                           | 12 ++++++------
 drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/Kconfig              |  4 ++--
 drivers/mtd/maps/Kconfig                         |  2 +-
 drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fs_enet/mac-fec.c |  2 +-
 drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fs_enet/mac-scc.c |  2 +-
 drivers/tty/serial/Kconfig                       |  2 +-
 drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/Makefile             |  2 +-
 drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart.h           |  2 +-
 drivers/video/console/Kconfig                    |  2 +-
 38 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)

Re: [PATCH 0/8] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG_8xx

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote:
> Two config options exist to define powerpc MPC8xx:
> * CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> * CONFIG_8xx
> In addition, CONFIG_PPC_8xx also defines CONFIG_CPM1 as
> communication co-processor
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype has contained the following
> comment about CONFIG_8xx item for some years:
> "# this is temp to handle compat with arch=ppc"
>
> It looks like not many places still have that old CONFIG_8xx used,
> so it is likely to be a good time to get rid of it completely ?

We also have CONFIG_40x,. CONFIG_44x, and CONFIG_4xx.
There's no CONFIG_PPC_4* though.

Do we want (some) consistency?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH 0/8] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG_8xx

[Michael Ellerman]

On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 16:24 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Two config options exist to define powerpc MPC8xx:
> * CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> * CONFIG_8xx
> In addition, CONFIG_PPC_8xx also defines CONFIG_CPM1 as
> communication co-processor
> 
> arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype has contained the following
> comment about CONFIG_8xx item for some years:
> "# this is temp to handle compat with arch=ppc"
> 
> It looks like not many places still have that old CONFIG_8xx used,
> so it is likely to be a good time to get rid of it completely ?
> 
> Patchset is composed of the following patches:
> [1/8] powerpc: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> [2/8] um: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> [3/8] video: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> [4/8] net: freescale: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> [5/8] tty: cpm_uart: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_CPM1
> [6/8] mtd: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> [7/8] isdn: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> [8/8] powerpc: get rid of CONFIG_8xx
> 
> All but the last one are independant and can be applied in any
> order. Only the 8th one requires the first 7 patches to be applied.

Sounds good.

I only see 0, 4 and 7 on linuxppc-dev for some reason.

You'll need to collect ACKs, or get the individual patches merged, and then we
can take patch 8 through the powerpc tree once those are all in - probably for
4.2.

cheers

Re: [PATCH 0/8] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG_8xx

[Scott Wood]

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 10:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 16:24 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > Two config options exist to define powerpc MPC8xx:
> > * CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > * CONFIG_8xx
> > In addition, CONFIG_PPC_8xx also defines CONFIG_CPM1 as
> > communication co-processor
> > 
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype has contained the following
> > comment about CONFIG_8xx item for some years:
> > "# this is temp to handle compat with arch=ppc"
> > 
> > It looks like not many places still have that old CONFIG_8xx used,
> > so it is likely to be a good time to get rid of it completely ?
> > 
> > Patchset is composed of the following patches:
> > [1/8] powerpc: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > [2/8] um: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > [3/8] video: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > [4/8] net: freescale: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > [5/8] tty: cpm_uart: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_CPM1
> > [6/8] mtd: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > [7/8] isdn: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > [8/8] powerpc: get rid of CONFIG_8xx
> > 
> > All but the last one are independant and can be applied in any
> > order. Only the 8th one requires the first 7 patches to be applied.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> I only see 0, 4 and 7 on linuxppc-dev for some reason.

I see them all in linuxppc-dev patchwork.

> You'll need to collect ACKs, or get the individual patches merged, and then we
> can take patch 8 through the powerpc tree once those are all in - probably for
> 4.2.

It looks like CONFIG_8xx is used a lot more than CONFIG_PPC_8xx, so it
would be less churn to get rid of the latter (plus, we also have
CONFIG_4xx, CONFIG_6xx, etc).  The only use of PPC_8xx I see outside
arch/powerpc is in drivers/watchdog/Kconfig.

-Scott

Re: [PATCH 0/8] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG_8xx

[Michael Ellerman]

On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 19:45 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 10:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 16:24 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > Two config options exist to define powerpc MPC8xx:
> > > * CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > > * CONFIG_8xx
> > > In addition, CONFIG_PPC_8xx also defines CONFIG_CPM1 as
> > > communication co-processor
> > > 
> > > arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype has contained the following
> > > comment about CONFIG_8xx item for some years:
> > > "# this is temp to handle compat with arch=ppc"
> > > 
> > > It looks like not many places still have that old CONFIG_8xx used,
> > > so it is likely to be a good time to get rid of it completely ?
> > > 
> > > Patchset is composed of the following patches:
> > > [1/8] powerpc: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > > [2/8] um: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > > [3/8] video: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > > [4/8] net: freescale: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > > [5/8] tty: cpm_uart: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_CPM1
> > > [6/8] mtd: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > > [7/8] isdn: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
> > > [8/8] powerpc: get rid of CONFIG_8xx
> > > 
> > > All but the last one are independant and can be applied in any
> > > order. Only the 8th one requires the first 7 patches to be applied.
> > 
> > Sounds good.
> > 
> > I only see 0, 4 and 7 on linuxppc-dev for some reason.
> 
> I see them all in linuxppc-dev patchwork.

Odd.

> > You'll need to collect ACKs, or get the individual patches merged, and then we
> > can take patch 8 through the powerpc tree once those are all in - probably for
> > 4.2.
> 
> It looks like CONFIG_8xx is used a lot more than CONFIG_PPC_8xx, so it
> would be less churn to get rid of the latter (plus, we also have
> CONFIG_4xx, CONFIG_6xx, etc).  The only use of PPC_8xx I see outside
> arch/powerpc is in drivers/watchdog/Kconfig.

Yeah fine by me.

cheers

Re: [PATCH 0/8] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG_8xx

[leroy christophe]

Le 25/03/2015 01:45, Scott Wood a écrit :
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 10:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 16:24 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> Two config options exist to define powerpc MPC8xx:
>>> * CONFIG_PPC_8xx
>>> * CONFIG_8xx
>>> In addition, CONFIG_PPC_8xx also defines CONFIG_CPM1 as
>>> communication co-processor
>>>
>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype has contained the following
>>> comment about CONFIG_8xx item for some years:
>>> "# this is temp to handle compat with arch=ppc"
>>>
>>> It looks like not many places still have that old CONFIG_8xx used,
>>> so it is likely to be a good time to get rid of it completely ?
>>>
>>> Patchset is composed of the following patches:
>>> [1/8] powerpc: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
>>> [2/8] um: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
>>> [3/8] video: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
>>> [4/8] net: freescale: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
>>> [5/8] tty: cpm_uart: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_CPM1
>>> [6/8] mtd: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
>>> [7/8] isdn: replace CONFIG_8xx by CONFIG_PPC_8xx
>>> [8/8] powerpc: get rid of CONFIG_8xx
>>>
>>> All but the last one are independant and can be applied in any
>>> order. Only the 8th one requires the first 7 patches to be applied.
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> I only see 0, 4 and 7 on linuxppc-dev for some reason.
> I see them all in linuxppc-dev patchwork.
>
>> You'll need to collect ACKs, or get the individual patches merged, and then we
>> can take patch 8 through the powerpc tree once those are all in - probably for
>> 4.2.
> It looks like CONFIG_8xx is used a lot more than CONFIG_PPC_8xx, so it
> would be less churn to get rid of the latter (plus, we also have
> CONFIG_4xx, CONFIG_6xx, etc).  The only use of PPC_8xx I see outside
> arch/powerpc is in drivers/watchdog/Kconfig.

Ok, we can do that. But when outside of arch/powerpc/, isn't is more 
explicit with CONFIG_PPC_8xx rather that CONFIG_8xx ?

Now that I have submitted the first set of patch, don't we have a risk 
that now it is already merged by some other maintainers ?

Christophe

Re: [PATCH 0/8] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG_8xx

[Scott Wood]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 10:19 +0200, leroy christophe wrote:
> Le 25/03/2015 01:45, Scott Wood a écrit :
> > On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 10:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> You'll need to collect ACKs, or get the individual patches merged, and then we
> >> can take patch 8 through the powerpc tree once those are all in - probably for
> >> 4.2.
> > It looks like CONFIG_8xx is used a lot more than CONFIG_PPC_8xx, so it
> > would be less churn to get rid of the latter (plus, we also have
> > CONFIG_4xx, CONFIG_6xx, etc).  The only use of PPC_8xx I see outside
> > arch/powerpc is in drivers/watchdog/Kconfig.
> 
> Ok, we can do that. But when outside of arch/powerpc/, isn't is more 
> explicit with CONFIG_PPC_8xx rather that CONFIG_8xx ?

Yes, CONFIG_PPC_8xx is a better name, but churn and consistency matter
as well.

> Now that I have submitted the first set of patch, don't we have a risk 
> that now it is already merged by some other maintainers ?

Sigh.  I see a couple in linux-next.

-Scott

Re: [PATCH 0/8] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG_8xx

[Michael Ellerman]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 16:31 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 10:19 +0200, leroy christophe wrote:
> > Le 25/03/2015 01:45, Scott Wood a écrit :
> > > On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 10:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > >> You'll need to collect ACKs, or get the individual patches merged, and then we
> > >> can take patch 8 through the powerpc tree once those are all in - probably for
> > >> 4.2.
> > > It looks like CONFIG_8xx is used a lot more than CONFIG_PPC_8xx, so it
> > > would be less churn to get rid of the latter (plus, we also have
> > > CONFIG_4xx, CONFIG_6xx, etc).  The only use of PPC_8xx I see outside
> > > arch/powerpc is in drivers/watchdog/Kconfig.
> > 
> > Ok, we can do that. But when outside of arch/powerpc/, isn't is more 
> > explicit with CONFIG_PPC_8xx rather that CONFIG_8xx ?
> 
> Yes, CONFIG_PPC_8xx is a better name, but churn and consistency matter
> as well.
> 
> > Now that I have submitted the first set of patch, don't we have a risk 
> > that now it is already merged by some other maintainers ?
> 
> Sigh.  I see a couple in linux-next.

Yeah, I think we missed the boat on that one.

cheers