From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (e23smtp01.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC6641A028D for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:40:31 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:40:31 +1000 Received: from d23relay08.au.ibm.com (d23relay08.au.ibm.com [9.185.71.33]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F00E2CE8054 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:40:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay08.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u0D6dwln37552312 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:40:06 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u0D6duEI014156 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:39:56 +1100 Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/powernv: Remove support for p5ioc2 To: Russell Currey , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org References: <1452665431-7880-1-git-send-email-ruscur@russell.cc> From: Andrew Donnellan Message-ID: <5695F123.4070602@au1.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:39:31 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1452665431-7880-1-git-send-email-ruscur@russell.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 Doesn't apply cleanly on next, but that's minor. > @@ -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? -- Andrew Donnellan Software Engineer, OzLabs andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com Australia Development Lab, Canberra +61 2 6201 8874 (work) IBM Australia Limited