linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] memory: Add Broadcom STB memory controller driver

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: <CAGE=qrqpnbgCkn3v2KfQs=VpGw+XOXndzWh2sg=6tXbj7Y3KHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Aug 2022 10:30:55 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] memory: Add Broadcom STB memory controller driver

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 01:23, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/12/22 11:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 12/08/2022 20:52, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >
> >>>> unless you also implied enclosing those functions under an #if
> >>>> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) or something which is IMHO less preferable.
> >>>
> >>> Are you sure you added also pm_ptr()? I don't see such warnings with W=1
> >>> and final object does not have the functions (for a different driver but
> >>> same principle).
> >>
> >> Yes I am sure I added pm_ptr() see the v4 I just submitted. I don't see
> >> how the compiler cannot warn about the functions being unused the day
> >> they stop being referenced by the pm_ops structure which is eliminated?
> >
> > I don't have the answer how it exactly works (or which gcc version
> > introduced it), but I tested it and the functions were not present in
> > the object file, thus of course no warnings.
> >
> > The driver change I am referring to is:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220808174107.38676-15-paul@crapouillou.net/
> >
> > I think the only difference against your v4 is:
> > DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS
> > and lack of __maybe_unused on the functions.
> >
> > The DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS itself adds __maybe_unused for !CONFIG_PM
> > case, but I don't think it is relevant.
>
> It definitively is relevant here. SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without
> __maybe_unused results in the following pre-processed code:
>

What I was referring to is "__maybe_unused" is not relevant here. The
DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS (with pm_ptr()) are the change you need.

Best regards,
Krzysztof