| Submitter | Vikram Narayanan |
|---|---|
| Date | Oct. 23, 2012, 10:05 a.m. |
| Message ID | <50866BEC.1030601@gmail.com> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/193415/ |
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On 10/23/2012 12:05 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote: > As dummy{1,2} are not used anywhere, mark it with __maybe_unused > > Signed-off-by: Vikram Narayanan <vikram186@gmail.com> > Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> > --- > common/spl/spl.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c > index 0d829c0..62fd3bd 100644 > --- a/common/spl/spl.c > +++ b/common/spl/spl.c > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void spl_ram_load_image(void) > } > #endif > > -void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2) > +void board_init_r(__maybe_unused gd_t *dummy1, __maybe_unused ulong dummy2) > { > u32 boot_device; > debug(">>spl:board_init_r()\n"); > Perhaps even __always_unused instead of __maybe_unused as these variables are never used? Thanks, Stefan
On 10/23/2012 3:56 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: > On 10/23/2012 12:05 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote: >> As dummy{1,2} are not used anywhere, mark it with __maybe_unused >> >> Signed-off-by: Vikram Narayanan<vikram186@gmail.com> >> Cc: Stefan Roese<sr@denx.de> >> --- >> common/spl/spl.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c >> index 0d829c0..62fd3bd 100644 >> --- a/common/spl/spl.c >> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c >> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void spl_ram_load_image(void) >> } >> #endif >> >> -void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2) >> +void board_init_r(__maybe_unused gd_t *dummy1, __maybe_unused ulong dummy2) >> { >> u32 boot_device; >> debug(">>spl:board_init_r()\n"); >> > > Perhaps even __always_unused instead of __maybe_unused as these > variables are never used? Yes. It is better, in the case if it is never used at all. Thanks, Vikram
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:53PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > On 10/23/2012 12:05 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote: > > As dummy{1,2} are not used anywhere, mark it with __maybe_unused > > > > Signed-off-by: Vikram Narayanan <vikram186@gmail.com> > > Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> > > --- > > common/spl/spl.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c > > index 0d829c0..62fd3bd 100644 > > --- a/common/spl/spl.c > > +++ b/common/spl/spl.c > > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void spl_ram_load_image(void) > > } > > #endif > > > > -void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2) > > +void board_init_r(__maybe_unused gd_t *dummy1, __maybe_unused ulong dummy2) > > { > > u32 boot_device; > > debug(">>spl:board_init_r()\n"); > > > > Perhaps even __always_unused instead of __maybe_unused as these > variables are never used? Also, what does this give us? Fixing a sparse warning?
On 10/23/2012 9:15 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:53PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: >> On 10/23/2012 12:05 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote: >>> As dummy{1,2} are not used anywhere, mark it with __maybe_unused >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vikram Narayanan<vikram186@gmail.com> >>> Cc: Stefan Roese<sr@denx.de> >>> --- >>> common/spl/spl.c | 2 +- >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c >>> index 0d829c0..62fd3bd 100644 >>> --- a/common/spl/spl.c >>> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c >>> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void spl_ram_load_image(void) >>> } >>> #endif >>> >>> -void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2) >>> +void board_init_r(__maybe_unused gd_t *dummy1, __maybe_unused ulong dummy2) >>> { >>> u32 boot_device; >>> debug(">>spl:board_init_r()\n"); >>> >> >> Perhaps even __always_unused instead of __maybe_unused as these >> variables are never used? > > Also, what does this give us? Fixing a sparse warning? Not a sparse warning. I noticed this while looking at the code. ~Vikram
On 10/23/2012 12:15:11 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote: > On 10/23/2012 9:15 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:53PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: >>> On 10/23/2012 12:05 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote: >>>> As dummy{1,2} are not used anywhere, mark it with __maybe_unused >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vikram Narayanan<vikram186@gmail.com> >>>> Cc: Stefan Roese<sr@denx.de> >>>> --- >>>> common/spl/spl.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c >>>> index 0d829c0..62fd3bd 100644 >>>> --- a/common/spl/spl.c >>>> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c >>>> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void spl_ram_load_image(void) >>>> } >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> -void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2) >>>> +void board_init_r(__maybe_unused gd_t *dummy1, __maybe_unused >>>> ulong dummy2) >>>> { >>>> u32 boot_device; >>>> debug(">>spl:board_init_r()\n"); >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps even __always_unused instead of __maybe_unused as these >>> variables are never used? >> >> Also, what does this give us? Fixing a sparse warning? > > Not a sparse warning. I noticed this while looking at the code. If there's no warning, why do we need to ugly up the code with __maybe_unused? Unused arguments are quite common, as a result of implementing a common interface where this implementation doesn't need all the information that the interface provides. It should not cause a warning and should not require annotation. -Scott
On 10/24/2012 7:22 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 10/23/2012 12:15:11 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote: >> On 10/23/2012 9:15 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:53PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: >>>> On 10/23/2012 12:05 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote: >>>>> As dummy{1,2} are not used anywhere, mark it with __maybe_unused >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vikram Narayanan<vikram186@gmail.com> >>>>> Cc: Stefan Roese<sr@denx.de> >>>>> --- >>>>> common/spl/spl.c | 2 +- >>>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c >>>>> index 0d829c0..62fd3bd 100644 >>>>> --- a/common/spl/spl.c >>>>> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c >>>>> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void spl_ram_load_image(void) >>>>> } >>>>> #endif >>>>> >>>>> -void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2) >>>>> +void board_init_r(__maybe_unused gd_t *dummy1, __maybe_unused >>>>> ulong dummy2) >>>>> { >>>>> u32 boot_device; >>>>> debug(">>spl:board_init_r()\n"); >>>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps even __always_unused instead of __maybe_unused as these >>>> variables are never used? >>> >>> Also, what does this give us? Fixing a sparse warning? >> >> Not a sparse warning. I noticed this while looking at the code. > > If there's no warning, why do we need to ugly up the code with > __maybe_unused? I'd rather call this a proper way of coding, than calling it ugly. But perceptions differ. > Unused arguments are quite common, as a result of implementing a common > interface where this implementation doesn't need all the information > that the interface provides. It should not cause a warning and should > not require annotation. ~Vikram
Patch
diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c index 0d829c0..62fd3bd 100644 --- a/common/spl/spl.c +++ b/common/spl/spl.c @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void spl_ram_load_image(void) } #endif -void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2) +void board_init_r(__maybe_unused gd_t *dummy1, __maybe_unused ulong dummy2) { u32 boot_device; debug(">>spl:board_init_r()\n");
As dummy{1,2} are not used anywhere, mark it with __maybe_unused Signed-off-by: Vikram Narayanan <vikram186@gmail.com> Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> --- common/spl/spl.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)