linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] cpufreq: CPPC: Fix unused-function 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]

Message-ID: <20220530082025.vqzk37dvyzxiq7dv@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 13:50:25 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ionela.Voinescu@....com,
        Dietmar.Eggemann@....com,
        Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] cpufreq: CPPC: Fix unused-function warning

On 30-05-22, 10:12, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> Building the cppc_cpufreq driver with for arm64 with
> CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=n triggers the following warnings:
>  drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:550:12: error: ‘cppc_get_cpu_cost’ defined but not used
> [-Werror=unused-function]
>    550 | static int cppc_get_cpu_cost(struct device *cpu_dev, unsigned long KHz,
>        |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:481:12: error: ‘cppc_get_cpu_power’ defined but not used
> [-Werror=unused-function]
>    481 | static int cppc_get_cpu_power(struct device *cpu_dev,
>        |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Fixes: 740fcdc2c20e ("cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information")
> Reported-by: Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index d092c9bb4ba3..ecd0d3ee48c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ static inline unsigned long compute_cost(int cpu, int step)
>  			step * CPPC_EM_COST_STEP;
>  }
>  
> -static int cppc_get_cpu_power(struct device *cpu_dev,
> +static __maybe_unused int cppc_get_cpu_power(struct device *cpu_dev,
>  		unsigned long *power, unsigned long *KHz)
>  {
>  	unsigned long perf_step, perf_prev, perf, perf_check;
> @@ -547,8 +547,8 @@ static int cppc_get_cpu_power(struct device *cpu_dev,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int cppc_get_cpu_cost(struct device *cpu_dev, unsigned long KHz,
> -		unsigned long *cost)
> +static __maybe_unused int cppc_get_cpu_cost(struct device *cpu_dev,
> +		unsigned long KHz, unsigned long *cost)
>  {
>  	unsigned long perf_step, perf_prev;
>  	struct cppc_perf_caps *perf_caps;

Should we actually run cppc_cpufreq_register_em() for
!CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL ? Why?

-- 
viresh