powerpc: remove checks for CONFIG_BOOK3E_MMU_TLB_STATS

[Scott Wood]

On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 12:06 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 09:33 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Scott,
> > 
> > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 17:37 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S: Assembler messages:
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:89: Error: unrecognized opcode: `tlb_miss_prolog_stats'
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:238: Error: unrecognized opcode: `tlb_miss_prolog_stats'
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:269: Error: unrecognized opcode: `tlb_miss_prolog_stats'
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:281: Error: unrecognized opcode: `tlb_miss_prolog_stats'
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:441: Error: unrecognized opcode: `tlb_miss_prolog_stats'
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:510: Error: unrecognized opcode: `tlb_miss_prolog_stats'
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:881: Error: unrecognized opcode: `tlb_miss_prolog_stats'
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:918: Error: unrecognized opcode: `tlb_miss_prolog_stats'
> > 
> > Thanks for testing!
> > 
> > That's a bit surprising. The patch is intended to be a non event. Ie, it
> > only removes what the preprocessor would have removed anyway. Unless I
> > botched it, of course.
> > 
> > What exactly did you test there?
> 
> For what it's worth: I can't reproduce this error with the cross
> compiler now shipped with Fedora 20 (ie, powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC)
> 4.8.1 20130717 (Red Hat 4.8.1-5)). It shows a nice and clean
>      AS      arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.o
> 
> in the output.
> 
> That's v3.15-rc6, with just this patch, and using a .config generated,
> with "make oldconfig", from arch/powerpc/configs/ppc64e_defconfig.

Hmm, I tried applying again and it was fine.  I guess I accidentally
removed one line too many when resolving a conflict with
b1576fec7f4dd4657694fefc97fda4cf28ec68e9 "powerpc: No need to use dot
symbols when branching to a function" that's in Ben's -next tree.

-Scott