diff mbox series

[-next] powerpc/eeh: Remove unused inline function eeh_dev_phb_init_dynamic()

Message ID 20210324140714.19612-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted
Delegated to: Christophe Leroy
Headers show
Series [-next] powerpc/eeh: Remove unused inline function eeh_dev_phb_init_dynamic() | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
snowpatch_ozlabs/apply_patch success Successfully applied on branch powerpc/merge (87d76f542a24ecfa797e9bd3bb56c0f19aabff57)
snowpatch_ozlabs/build-ppc64le success Build succeeded
snowpatch_ozlabs/build-ppc64be success Build succeeded
snowpatch_ozlabs/build-ppc64e success Build succeeded
snowpatch_ozlabs/build-pmac32 success Build succeeded
snowpatch_ozlabs/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 8 lines checked
snowpatch_ozlabs/needsstable success Patch has no Fixes tags

Commit Message

Yue Haibing March 24, 2021, 2:07 p.m. UTC
commit 475028efc708 ("powerpc/eeh: Remove eeh_dev_phb_init_dynamic()")
left behind this, so can remove it.

Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Daniel Axtens March 26, 2021, 5:08 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi,

> commit 475028efc708 ("powerpc/eeh: Remove eeh_dev_phb_init_dynamic()")
> left behind this, so can remove it.

I had a look: the inline that you are removing here is for the
!CONFIG_EEH case, which explains why it was missed the first time.

This looks like a good change. Out of interest, what tool are you using
to find these unused inlines? If there are many more, it might make
sense to combine future patches removing them into a single patch, but
I'm not sure.

checkpatch likes this patch, so that's also good :)

Reviewed-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>

Kind regards,
Daniel
Yue Haibing March 31, 2021, 12:58 p.m. UTC | #2
On 2021/3/26 13:08, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> commit 475028efc708 ("powerpc/eeh: Remove eeh_dev_phb_init_dynamic()")
>> left behind this, so can remove it.
> 
> I had a look: the inline that you are removing here is for the
> !CONFIG_EEH case, which explains why it was missed the first time.
> 
> This looks like a good change. Out of interest, what tool are you using
> to find these unused inlines? If there are many more, it might make
> sense to combine future patches removing them into a single patch, but
> I'm not sure.

Just use some grep skill, will do that if any.

> 
> checkpatch likes this patch, so that's also good :)
> 
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
> 
> Kind regards,
> Daniel
> .
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
index b1a5bba2e0b9..ee0e7b8eac60 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/eeh.h
@@ -333,8 +333,6 @@  static inline bool eeh_enabled(void)
 
 static inline void eeh_show_enabled(void) { }
 
-static inline void eeh_dev_phb_init_dynamic(struct pci_controller *phb) { }
-
 static inline int eeh_check_failure(const volatile void __iomem *token)
 {
 	return 0;