linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in place of the SIMPLE_DEV_PM

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: <BN8PR11MB3668C9D5BD38AECBE160D013E9479@BN8PR11MB3668.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2022 18:27:41 +0000
From:   <Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@...rochip.com>
To:     <bagasdotme@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: use
 DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in place of the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in pci1xxxx's
 gpio driver

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 7:15 PM
> To: Kumaravel Thiagarajan - I21417
> <Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@...rochip.com>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com; arnd@...db.de; linux-
> gpio@...r.kernel.org; linux-next@...r.kernel.org;
> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: use
> DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in place of the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in
> pci1xxxx's gpio driver
> 
> On 9/12/22 18:36, Kumaravel Thiagarajan wrote:
> > build errors listed below and reported for the builds of riscv, s390,
> > csky, alpha and loongarch allmodconfig are fixed in this patch.
> >
> > drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:311:12: error:
> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >   311 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
> >       |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:295:12: error:
> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >   295 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >       |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> 
> What about this description?:
> 
> "Sudip reported unused function errors on riscv, s390, cksy, alpha, and
> loongarch (allmodconfig):
> <pci1xxxx_gpio_* errors>...
> 
> Fix these errors by using DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS."
It looks good even though it does not include all the details.
But is not how much of detail good enough subjective?
I thought some might be looking for more information and chose this way.
Do you think I need to change this? Please let me know.
> 
> > Fixes: 4ec7ac90ff39 ("misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add power management
> > functions - suspend & resume handlers.")
> > Reported-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kumaravel Thiagarajan
> > <kumaravel.thiagarajan@...rochip.com>
> > ---
.
.

Thank You.

Regards,
Kumaravel