[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170320135131.GP22463@ulmo.ba.sec>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:51:31 +0100
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Ralph Sennhauser <ralph.sennhauser@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Imre Kaloz <kaloz@...nwrt.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"open list:PWM SUBSYSTEM" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpio: mvebu: Add limited PWM support
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:17:47AM +0100, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:03:05 +0100
> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
[...]
> > > +static void mvebu_pwm_suspend(struct mvebu_gpio_chip *mvchip)
> > > +static void mvebu_pwm_resume(struct mvebu_gpio_chip *mvchip)
> >
> > I think both of these need to be tagged __maybe_unused to not give
> > noise in randconfig builds.
>
> I haven't seen any warnings with CONFIG_PWM disabled. Which
> configuration you expect to trigger a warning? mvebu_pwm_probe should
> be the same, right?
It's got nothing to do with CONFIG_PWM and as far as I can tell your
usage of IS_ENABLED() is fine here. However, if you try building the
driver with a !PM configuration, both *_suspend() and *_resume() end
up being unused and giving you a warning.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists