Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings | From | Maximilian Luz <> | Date | Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:55:52 +0100 |
| |
On 12/15/20 12:33 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > Fix build warnings when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not enabled and these > functions are not used: > > ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:189:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] > static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev) > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:184:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] > static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev) > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Fixes: 274335f1c557 ("platform/surface: Add Driver to set up lid GPEs on MS Surface device") > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> > Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org > --- > v2: dropped Maximilian's RVB tag since the patch changed > use preferred __maybe_unused instead of ifdeffery: > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/ > > drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > --- linux-next-20201214.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c > +++ linux-next-20201214/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c > @@ -181,12 +181,12 @@ static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str > return 0; > } > > -static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev) > +static int __maybe_unused surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev) > { > return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true); > } > > -static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev) > +static int __maybe_unused surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev) > { > return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false); > } >
Code looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
As already mentioned before, I'd prefer the subject line to be "platform/surface: gpe: ...", or at least "platform/surface: ..." for consistency with other commits. May just be a personal preference though, so nothing that should prevent it from being applied.
Thanks, Max
| |