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

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

[YueHaibing]

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(-)

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;
-- 
2.17.1

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

[Daniel Axtens]

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

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

[YueHaibing]

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
> .
>