From: Petr Tesarik <[email protected]>
It is difficult to imagine how this function should be used by
drivers. The last in-tree user was removed by commit
d3f6bacfca86 ("drm/i915: stop abusing swiotlb_max_segment"), and
even this user had been abusing it to achieve a different goal.
Let's remove this function now, as already suggested by Chris
Hellwig about a year ago in commit a2daa27c0c61 ("swiotlb:
simplify swiotlb_max_segment").
Signed-off-by: Petr Tesarik <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/swiotlb.h | 5 -----
kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 8 --------
2 files changed, 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
index 35bc4e281c21..bcef10e20ea4 100644
--- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h
+++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
@@ -121,7 +121,6 @@ static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
void swiotlb_init(bool addressing_limited, unsigned int flags);
void __init swiotlb_exit(void);
-unsigned int swiotlb_max_segment(void);
size_t swiotlb_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev);
bool is_swiotlb_active(struct device *dev);
void __init swiotlb_adjust_size(unsigned long size);
@@ -140,10 +139,6 @@ static inline bool is_swiotlb_force_bounce(struct device *dev)
static inline void swiotlb_exit(void)
{
}
-static inline unsigned int swiotlb_max_segment(void)
-{
- return 0;
-}
static inline size_t swiotlb_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev)
{
return SIZE_MAX;
diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
index a34c38bbe28f..f35d934f6e58 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
@@ -156,14 +156,6 @@ setup_io_tlb_npages(char *str)
}
early_param("swiotlb", setup_io_tlb_npages);
-unsigned int swiotlb_max_segment(void)
-{
- if (!io_tlb_default_mem.nslabs)
- return 0;
- return rounddown(io_tlb_default_mem.nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT, PAGE_SIZE);
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(swiotlb_max_segment);
-
unsigned long swiotlb_size_or_default(void)
{
return default_nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT;
--
2.25.1
I've got an equivalent patch already queue up in dma-mapping-for-next.
On 2/21/2023 3:16 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I've got an equivalent patch already queue up in dma-mapping-for-next.
Ah, good. Sorry for the fuss. Most importantly, it goes away. It was one of the things that confused me as I started reading swiotlb code.
Petr T