# \[PATCH 0/8\] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG\_8xx - List: linuxppc-dev - 8 messages, 4 authors - Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/03/4449523/t ## \[PATCH 0/8\] powerpc/8xx: Getting rid of CONFIG\_8xx - From: Christophe Leroy \ - Date: 2015-03-12 15:36:01 - Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/03/4449523.md ```text 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 --- 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 - From: Geert Uytterhoeven \ - Date: 2015-03-12 20:20:05 - Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/03/4449836.md ```text On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Christophe Leroy [ref] 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 - From: Michael Ellerman \ - Date: 2015-03-12 23:34:32 - Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/03/9482931.md ```text 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 - From: Scott Wood \ - Date: 2015-03-25 00:45:45 - Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/03/9483192.md ```text 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 - From: Michael Ellerman \ - Date: 2015-03-25 01:31:45 - Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/03/9483193.md ```text 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 - From: leroy christophe \ - Date: 2015-04-07 09:02:13 - Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/04/9483566.md ```text 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 - From: Scott Wood \ - Date: 2015-04-07 21:31:22 - Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/04/9483574.md ```text 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 - From: Michael Ellerman \ - Date: 2015-04-08 03:25:59 - Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/04/9483585.md ```text 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 ```