Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Fix build warning when CONFIG_NET_DSA_LEGACY is n | From | Heiner Kallweit <> | Date | Mon, 4 Mar 2019 19:31:26 +0100 |
| |
On 04.03.2019 19:24, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 3/4/19 10:18 AM, Heiner Kallweit wrote: >> On 04.03.2019 15:57, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 10:16:08PM +0800, Zhangshaokun wrote: >>>> Hi Andrew, >>>> >>>> On 2019/3/4 21:26, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 08:43:01PM +0800, Shaokun Zhang wrote: >>>>>> When CONFIG_NET_DSA_LEGACY is n, there is a GCC bulid warning: >>>>>> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c:4623:13: warning: ‘mv88e6xxx_ports_cmode_init’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] >>>>>> static void mv88e6xxx_ports_cmode_init(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip) >>>>>> Let's fix it. >>>>> >>>>> Hi Shaokun, Heiner >>>>> >>>>> Although this fixes the warning, i suspect there i something wrong >>>>> with the original patch adding mv88e6390x_port_set_cmode(). It should >>>>> also be used without CONFIG_NET_DSA_LEGACY. >>>> >>>> I checked the commit-id 2a93c1a3651f ("net: dsa: Allow compiling out legacy support") by Florian. >>>> Do you mean that CONFIG_NET_DSA_LEGACY shall be removed completely? :-) >>> >>> No, i suspect mv88e6390x_ports_cmode_init() is being called from the >>> wrong place, or needs to be called from a second location. >>> >>> [Goes and looks at the code] >>> >>> Yes, it should also be called in mv88e6xxx_probe(). I would call it >>> just after the call to mv88e6xxx_detect(), so that it is the same as >>> in mv88e6xxx_drv_probe(). >>> >>> There are two ways DSA drivers can be probed. The legacy way, which is >>> optional, and is slowly getting removed, and the current way. Heiner >>> is new to DSA and probably missed that, and only handled the legacy >>> probe method. I also missed checking when i reviewed to patch :-( >>> >> Right, I missed that, will submit a fix. >> >> I just saw that the Kconfig entry comment for NET_DSA_LEGACY says: >> "This feature is scheduled for removal in 4.17." >> >> Was forgotten to remove it or did somebody scream loud enough >> "But I depend on it" ? > > The intent was to remove it by that kernel version but the 88e6060 > driver still depends on it, and there appears to be some active users > that Andrew worked with. > I see, thanks. And migrating this driver to the new DSA framework version isn't possible or not worth the effort?
| |