Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 May 2022 13:50:25 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] cpufreq: CPPC: Fix unused-function warning |
| |
On 30-05-22, 10:12, Pierre Gondois wrote: > Building the cppc_cpufreq driver with for arm64 with > CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=n triggers the following warnings: > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:550:12: error: ‘cppc_get_cpu_cost’ defined but not used > [-Werror=unused-function] > 550 | static int cppc_get_cpu_cost(struct device *cpu_dev, unsigned long KHz, > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c:481:12: error: ‘cppc_get_cpu_power’ defined but not used > [-Werror=unused-function] > 481 | static int cppc_get_cpu_power(struct device *cpu_dev, > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Fixes: 740fcdc2c20e ("cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information") > Reported-by: Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com> > Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > index d092c9bb4ba3..ecd0d3ee48c5 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > @@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ static inline unsigned long compute_cost(int cpu, int step) > step * CPPC_EM_COST_STEP; > } > > -static int cppc_get_cpu_power(struct device *cpu_dev, > +static __maybe_unused int cppc_get_cpu_power(struct device *cpu_dev, > unsigned long *power, unsigned long *KHz) > { > unsigned long perf_step, perf_prev, perf, perf_check; > @@ -547,8 +547,8 @@ static int cppc_get_cpu_power(struct device *cpu_dev, > return 0; > } > > -static int cppc_get_cpu_cost(struct device *cpu_dev, unsigned long KHz, > - unsigned long *cost) > +static __maybe_unused int cppc_get_cpu_cost(struct device *cpu_dev, > + unsigned long KHz, unsigned long *cost) > { > unsigned long perf_step, perf_prev; > struct cppc_perf_caps *perf_caps;
Should we actually run cppc_cpufreq_register_em() for !CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL ? Why?
-- viresh
| |