On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 13:56 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:

On 12/09/2020 03:07, Leonardo Bras wrote:

quoted

Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,

Update remove_dma_window() so it can be used to remove DDW with a given
property name.

Out of context this seems useless. How about?
===
At the moment pseries stores information about created directly mapped 
DDW window in DIRECT64_PROPNAME. We are going to implement indirect DDW 
window which we need to preserve during kexec so we need another 
property for that.
===

Feel free to correct my english :)

Thanks Alexey! It helped a lot me better describing the reasoning
before the change!

quoted

  	ret = of_remove_property(np, win);
  	if (ret)
  		pr_warn("%pOF: failed to remove direct window property: %d\n",
  			np, ret);
+	return 0;

You do not test the return code anywhere until 13/14 so I'd say merge 
this one into 13/14, the same comment applies to 12/14. If you do not 
move chunks in 13/14, it is going to be fairly small patch.

I have applied most suggested changes for patches 11,12,13, but on a
single diff it still amounts to 275 lines. 
To be honest, after 7 months of sending this patchset (and working on
other stuff), patch 13 looks a lot like to read alone, and merging with
11 & 12 seems to be too much.

Would it be ok to apply the changes and leave them all separated, or as
a mid ground just merging 11 & 12 together? 

Adding your suggested text above should be enough to get enough context
for them. I could also say why the return code is left unused for now.

Best regards,
Leonardo Bras