[PATCH] MIPS: sibyte: remove no longer needed board_mem_region

Thomas Bogendoerfer posted 1 patch 2 years, 11 months ago
arch/mips/sibyte/common/cfe.c | 15 ---------------
1 file changed, 15 deletions(-)
[PATCH] MIPS: sibyte: remove no longer needed board_mem_region
Posted by Thomas Bogendoerfer 2 years, 11 months ago
With the direct use of memblock interface board_mem_region is no
longer needed.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
---
 arch/mips/sibyte/common/cfe.c | 15 ---------------
 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/sibyte/common/cfe.c b/arch/mips/sibyte/common/cfe.c
index 1a504294d85f..2503f60271e8 100644
--- a/arch/mips/sibyte/common/cfe.c
+++ b/arch/mips/sibyte/common/cfe.c
@@ -35,11 +35,6 @@
 #endif
 #endif
 
-#define SIBYTE_MAX_MEM_REGIONS 8
-phys_addr_t board_mem_region_addrs[SIBYTE_MAX_MEM_REGIONS];
-phys_addr_t board_mem_region_sizes[SIBYTE_MAX_MEM_REGIONS];
-unsigned int board_mem_region_count;
-
 int cfe_cons_handle;
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
@@ -141,16 +136,6 @@ static __init void prom_meminit(void)
 					size -= 512;
 				memblock_add(addr, size);
 			}
-			board_mem_region_addrs[board_mem_region_count] = addr;
-			board_mem_region_sizes[board_mem_region_count] = size;
-			board_mem_region_count++;
-			if (board_mem_region_count ==
-			    SIBYTE_MAX_MEM_REGIONS) {
-				/*
-				 * Too many regions.  Need to configure more
-				 */
-				while(1);
-			}
 		}
 	}
 #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
-- 
2.35.3
Re: [PATCH] MIPS: sibyte: remove no longer needed board_mem_region
Posted by Thomas Bogendoerfer 2 years, 11 months ago
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:45:48PM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> With the direct use of memblock interface board_mem_region is no
> longer needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
> ---
>  arch/mips/sibyte/common/cfe.c | 15 ---------------
>  1 file changed, 15 deletions(-)

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]