[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/10] drm/i915: remove I915_READ_FW() and I915_WRITE_FW() macros

[Jani Nikula]

We've transitioned all users to either specific intel de uncore
functions or the more generic intel uncore functions. Remove the macros.

Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 29 -----------------------------
 1 file changed, 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 9150d16235ea..2d19c577c02d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1978,35 +1978,6 @@ int i915_reg_read_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 
 #define POSTING_READ(reg__)	__I915_REG_OP(posting_read, dev_priv, (reg__))
 
-/* These are untraced mmio-accessors that are only valid to be used inside
- * critical sections, such as inside IRQ handlers, where forcewake is explicitly
- * controlled.
- *
- * Think twice, and think again, before using these.
- *
- * As an example, these accessors can possibly be used between:
- *
- * spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock);
- * intel_uncore_forcewake_get__locked();
- *
- * and
- *
- * intel_uncore_forcewake_put__locked();
- * spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock);
- *
- *
- * Note: some registers may not need forcewake held, so
- * intel_uncore_forcewake_{get,put} can be omitted, see
- * intel_uncore_forcewake_for_reg().
- *
- * Certain architectures will die if the same cacheline is concurrently accessed
- * by different clients (e.g. on Ivybridge). Access to registers should
- * therefore generally be serialised, by either the dev_priv->uncore.lock or
- * a more localised lock guarding all access to that bank of registers.
- */
-#define I915_READ_FW(reg__) __I915_REG_OP(read_fw, dev_priv, (reg__))
-#define I915_WRITE_FW(reg__, val__) __I915_REG_OP(write_fw, dev_priv, (reg__), (val__))
-
 /* i915_mm.c */
 int remap_io_mapping(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 		     unsigned long addr, unsigned long pfn, unsigned long size,
-- 
2.20.1