lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware: tegra-bpmp: mark PM function as __maybe_unused
From
Date


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-04 17:11    [W:0.058 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site