On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:10:42AM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >On 11/17/2015 12:04 PM, Gavin Shan wrote: >>On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:01:59PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>On 11/05/2015 12:12 AM, Gavin Shan wrote: >>>>As we track M32 segment consumption, this introduces an array to >>>>the PHB to track the mapping between M64 segment and PE number. >>>>The information is going to be used to find M64 segment from the >>>>PE number during PCI unplugging time in subsequent patches. >>> >>> >>>It would not hurt to put a few words about how we managed to live without >>>such a mapping for M64 before but we needed mapping for M32. >>> >> >>The M32 mapping (phb->ioda.m32_segmap[]) isn't used for anything before >>this patcheset. There're no need for M64 mapping before this patchset >>similarly, no need to add the words. > >After years I learned that reviewers ask less questions about new but yet >unused code when I put few words in the commit log confirming that it is not >used now but it will be used for <here I put what it is for> later. > >And it is not obvious that m32_segment is not used. And m64_segmap is started >being used only 13 patches later in: > >[PATCH v7 27/50] powerpc/powernv: Dynamically release PEs > >which is quite far, complicates reviewing. 12/50 is better be moved there (to >make it 26/50) or just merged into 27/50. > It doesn't make sense to me. As said in PATCH[00/50], the patchset consists of 3 separate parts: PowerNV PCI rework; Using PCI slot; Hotplug standalone driver; For the first part ("PowerNV PCI rework"), the patches are organized in order: refactor/cleanup, IO/M32/M64, DMA, PE allocation/deallocation. So I don't think I need move the patch around if you don't have a stronger reason. Thanks, Gavin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html