linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: tegra-bpmp: mark PM function as __maybe

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <14e652c3-53d9-40f3-61fe-74f9983a0bd4@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:19:56 +0100
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <talho@...dia.com>
CC:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
        "open list:TEGRA ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: tegra-bpmp: mark PM function as __maybe_unused


On 04/10/18 16:31, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM Timo Alho <talho@...dia.com> wrote:
>> On 03.10.2018 11:26, Jonathan Hunter wrote:
>>> On 02/10/18 22:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> The newly added tegra_bpmp_resume function is unused when CONFIG_PM
>>>> is disabled:
>>>>
>>>> drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c:847:12: error: 'tegra_bpmp_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>>>   static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>>
>>>> Mark it as __maybe_unused to avoid the warning and let the compiler
>>>> drop it silently.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: cd40f6ff124c ("firmware: tegra: bpmp: Implement suspend/resume support")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c | 2 +-
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>>>> index 41448ba78be9..a3d5b518c10e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>>>> @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static int tegra_bpmp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>      return err;
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> -static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>> +static int __maybe_unused tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>>   {
>>>>      struct tegra_bpmp *bpmp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>      unsigned int i;
>>>
>>> Arnd, is this seen with 32-bit ARM configs?
> 
> This was with a randconfig build on 64-bit ARM. I don't know exactly
> what combination of options caused it.
> 
>>> Timo, does it make sense to make BPMP dependent on ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC
>>> and ARCH_TEGRA_194_SOC instead of just ARCH_TEGRA? For 64-bit Tegra we
>>> have a dependency on PM so this should not be seen for 64-bit Tegra.
> 
> CONFIG_PM does not imply CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, so probably it
> was just broken for PM=y, PM_SLEEP=n.

Yes that would make sense.

>> Jon, there will be eventually a BPMP driver for ARCH_TEGRA_210_SOC as
>> well. So it is probably more appropriate to make BPMP dependent on ARM64
>> & ARCH_TEGRA.
> 
> Generally speaking, we are trying to allow building all drivers at least
> with CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST, in order to get the best build coverage.

True. Thinking some more it is fine with me, so ...

Acked-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic