Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: tegra-bpmp: mark PM function as __maybe_unused | From | Timo Alho <> | Date | Thu, 4 Oct 2018 18:11:10 +0300 |
| |
On 03.10.2018 11:26, Jonathan Hunter wrote: > > On 02/10/18 22:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> The newly added tegra_bpmp_resume function is unused when CONFIG_PM >> is disabled: >> >> drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c:847:12: error: 'tegra_bpmp_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] >> static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev) >> >> Mark it as __maybe_unused to avoid the warning and let the compiler >> drop it silently. >> >> Fixes: cd40f6ff124c ("firmware: tegra: bpmp: Implement suspend/resume support") >> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> >> --- >> drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c >> index 41448ba78be9..a3d5b518c10e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c >> @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static int tegra_bpmp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> return err; >> } >> >> -static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev) >> +static int __maybe_unused tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev) >> { >> struct tegra_bpmp *bpmp = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> unsigned int i; > > Arnd, is this seen with 32-bit ARM configs? > > Timo, does it make sense to make BPMP dependent on ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC > and ARCH_TEGRA_194_SOC instead of just ARCH_TEGRA? For 64-bit Tegra we > have a dependency on PM so this should not be seen for 64-bit Tegra.
Jon, there will be eventually a BPMP driver for ARCH_TEGRA_210_SOC as well. So it is probably more appropriate to make BPMP dependent on ARM64 & ARCH_TEGRA.
-Timo
| |