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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BN8PR11MB366868F22CBC68BB885E5911E9499@BN8PR11MB3668.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2022 09:50:54 +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: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:30 AM
> 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 9/14/22 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.
Yes. I had included his name only in the Reported-by: tag and missed it in the commit
description. I have fixed it in v2.

Thank You.

Regards,
Kumaravel