linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] phy: zynqmp: Fix unused-function compiler warning

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

Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:09:13 +0300
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:     Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        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 Tobias,

On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:07:09PM +0200, Tobias Klauser wrote:
> On 2020-07-01 at 16:01:08 +0200, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:00:26PM +0200, Tobias Klauser wrote:
> >> On 2020-07-01 at 15:44:43 +0200, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> >>> 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>
> >> 
> >> Thanks for the review Laurent.
> >> 
> >>>>> 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.
> >> 
> >> I don't mind either, it was just what seemed the more straight-forward
> >> fix. On the other hand, it seems that marking these functions as
> >> __maybe_unused is the more widely used method in other PHY drivers. In
> >> addition it would have the nice side-effect of the code always being
> >> compile-checked regardless of the value of CONFIG_PM_SLEEP.
> > 
> > That's a good point, haven't thought about it.
> > 
> >> Will send a v2 using __maybe_unused and will let you decide which one to
> >> pick :)
> > 
> > You can keep my R-b :-)
> 
> Thanks :) FWIW, I'd also drop the #ifdef CONFIG_PM in the same patch for
> the same reason. Is that OK with you as well?

Sure.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart