[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <db2fdc22-44b8-1e81-ace2-c83c143ac20e@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 08:59:33 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: 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 9/14/22 01:27, Kumaravel.Thiagarajan@...rochip.com wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, with full error text as Sudip had reported.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Powered by blists - more mailing lists