[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200701134443.GE27013@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:44:43 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>,
Anurag Kumar Vulisha <anurag.kumar.vulisha@...inx.com>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: zynqmp: Fix unused-function compiler warning
Hi Vinod,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 07:06:43PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 01-07-20, 16:19, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 11:04:38AM +0200, Tobias Klauser wrote:
> > > This fixes the following compiler warning when building with
> > > CONFIG_PM && !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP:
> > >
> > > drivers/phy/xilinx/phy-zynqmp.c:830:12: warning: ‘xpsgtr_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
> > > 830 | static int xpsgtr_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > drivers/phy/xilinx/phy-zynqmp.c:819:12: warning: ‘xpsgtr_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
> > > 819 | static int xpsgtr_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Oops :-S Sorry about that.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
> >
> > Vinod or Kishon, can you pick this patch up, or do I need to send a pull
> > request ? (It's my first driver in the PHY subsystem so I don't know
> > what the usual practices are there)
>
> patches are welcome :-)
>
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/phy/xilinx/phy-zynqmp.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/xilinx/phy-zynqmp.c b/drivers/phy/xilinx/phy-zynqmp.c
> > > index 8babee2ce9ec..22a0ae635797 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/phy/xilinx/phy-zynqmp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/phy/xilinx/phy-zynqmp.c
> > > @@ -815,7 +815,7 @@ static struct phy *xpsgtr_xlate(struct device *dev,
> > > * Power Management
> > > */
> > >
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>
> How about marking it as __maybe_unused instead?
I don't mind either, I'll let Tobias decide, but his patch seems fine,
is there a drawback in his approach ? If it's just a matter of personal
preference, I'd rather not require a v2.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists