Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:52:50 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] memory: Add Broadcom STB memory controller driver | From | Florian Fainelli <> |
| |
On 8/12/22 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12/08/2022 20:29, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> On 8/9/22 02:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 02/08/2022 01:09, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>>> Add support for configuring the Self Refresh Power Down (SRPD) >>>> inactivity timeout on Broadcom STB chips. This is used to conserve power >>>> when the DRAM activity is reduced. >>>> >>> >>> >>>> +static int __maybe_unused brcmstb_memc_resume(struct device *dev) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct brcmstb_memc *memc = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>>> + >>>> + if (memc->timeout_cycles == 0) >>>> + return 0; >>>> + >>>> + return brcmstb_memc_srpd_config(memc, memc->timeout_cycles); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(brcmstb_memc_pm_ops, brcmstb_memc_suspend, >>>> + brcmstb_memc_resume); >>>> + >>>> +static struct platform_driver brcmstb_memc_driver = { >>>> + .probe = brcmstb_memc_probe, >>>> + .remove = brcmstb_memc_remove, >>>> + .driver = { >>>> + .name = "brcmstb_memc", >>>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE, >>> >>> No need, run coccinelle. >>> >>>> + .of_match_table = brcmstb_memc_of_match, >>>> + .pm = &brcmstb_memc_pm_ops, >>> >>> Shouldn't this be pm_ptr()? and then no need for __maybe_unused in >>> brcmstb_memc_resume/suspend. >> >> How can one can remove __maybe_unused without causing a warning for the >> CONFIG_PM=n case, not that I needed to build to convince myself, but >> still did anyway: >> >> drivers/memory/brcmstb_memc.c:275:12: warning: 'brcmstb_memc_resume' >> defined but not used [-Wunused-function] >> static int brcmstb_memc_resume(struct device *dev) >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> drivers/memory/brcmstb_memc.c:252:12: warning: 'brcmstb_memc_suspend' >> defined but not used [-Wunused-function] >> static int brcmstb_memc_suspend(struct device *dev) >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> unless you also implied enclosing those functions under an #if >> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) or something which is IMHO less preferable. > > Are you sure you added also pm_ptr()? I don't see such warnings with W=1 > and final object does not have the functions (for a different driver but > same principle).
Yes I am sure I added pm_ptr() see the v4 I just submitted. I don't see how the compiler cannot warn about the functions being unused the day they stop being referenced by the pm_ops structure which is eliminated? -- Florian
| |