[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170323113502.36830c40@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:35:02 +0100
From: Ralph Sennhauser <ralph.sennhauser@...il.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"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 Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:11:09 +0100
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes I was referring to the !PM case.
Only this time around I did read !PM not as !PWM and so it became clear
what you meant the first time around and why __maybe_unused is required.
Thanks
Ralph
Powered by blists - more mailing lists