[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ed33a2ee-9c94-818f-b4c0-bc0257207a2f@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:37:24 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: "Gole, Dhruva" <d-gole@...com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Vaishnav Achath <vaishnav.a@...com>, Vignesh <vigneshr@...com>,
Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@...com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Tanguy Bouzeloc <tanguy.bouzeloc@...xo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: bcm63xx: remove PM_SLEEP based conditional
compilation
On 4/25/23 10:18, Gole, Dhruva wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4/25/2023 8:38 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 05:46:15PM +0530, Dhruva Gole wrote:
>>> Get rid of conditional compilation based on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP because
>>> it may introduce build issues with certain configs where it maybe disabled
>>> This is because if above config is not enabled the suspend-resume
>>> functions are never part of the code but the bcm63xx_spi_pm_ops struct
>>> still inits them to non-existent suspend-resume functions.
>>>
>>> Fixes: b42dfed83d95 ("spi: add Broadcom BCM63xx SPI controller driver")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
>> This patch results in:
>>
>> drivers/spi/spi-bcm63xx.c:632:12: error: 'bcm63xx_spi_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>> 632 | static int bcm63xx_spi_resume(struct device *dev)
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> drivers/spi/spi-bcm63xx.c:620:12: error: 'bcm63xx_spi_suspend' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>> 620 | static int bcm63xx_spi_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>
>> on architectures with no PM support (alpha, csky, m68k, openrisc, parisc,
>> riscv, s390).
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> I could send a patch to address this as pointed here [0]
>
> by adding a __maybe_unused.
>
> However, do you think my other patch [1] could address this issue without the need for above?
>
Personally I would go for [0] as the least invasive solution, but I really
have no idea, sorry. I just hope that your (broken) patch doesn't make it
as-is into the upstream kernel.
Guenter
> I think it would because DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS doesn't seem to be under any conditional CONFIG_PM.
>
> However, I may have missed something, please do let me know what's the best way to fix.
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/24ec3728-9720-ae6a-9ff5-3e2e13a96f76@gmail.com/
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230424102546.1604484-1-d-gole@ti.com/
>
>>
>> Guenter
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists