[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cab31891-15bf-4ae2-44dd-ae33de4eb4ed@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:23:53 -0500
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, tiwai@...e.de,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com, hui.wang@...onical.com,
broonie@...nel.org, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
jank@...ence.com, mengdong.lin@...el.com, sanyog.r.kale@...el.com,
rander.wang@...ux.intel.com, bard.liao@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soundwire: intel: fix CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
confusion
>> When CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not defined, GCC throws compilation warnings:
>>
>> drivers/soundwire/intel.c:1816:12: warning: ‘intel_resume’ defined but
>> not used [-Wunused-function]
>> 1816 | static int intel_resume(struct device *dev)
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> drivers/soundwire/intel.c:1697:12: warning: ‘intel_suspend’ defined
>> but not used [-Wunused-function]
>> 1697 | static int intel_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>
>> Fix by adding the missing CONFIG_PM_SLEEP.
>
> Can you rather use __maybe for for these rather than wrapping in another
> ifdef, that is the recommended way to do this
No objections, that would work as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists