firmware: tegra-bpmp: mark PM function as __maybe_unused
diff mbox series

Message ID 20181002212208.2971433-1-arnd@arndb.de
State New
Headers show
Series
  • firmware: tegra-bpmp: mark PM function as __maybe_unused
Related show

Commit Message

Arnd Bergmann Oct. 2, 2018, 9:21 p.m. UTC
The newly added tegra_bpmp_resume function is unused when CONFIG_PM
is disabled:

drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c:847:12: error: 'tegra_bpmp_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
 static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)

Mark it as __maybe_unused to avoid the warning and let the compiler
drop it silently.

Fixes: cd40f6ff124c ("firmware: tegra: bpmp: Implement suspend/resume support")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Jon Hunter Oct. 3, 2018, 8:26 a.m. UTC | #1
On 02/10/18 22:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The newly added tegra_bpmp_resume function is unused when CONFIG_PM
> is disabled:
> 
> drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c:847:12: error: 'tegra_bpmp_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>  static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
> 
> Mark it as __maybe_unused to avoid the warning and let the compiler
> drop it silently.
> 
> Fixes: cd40f6ff124c ("firmware: tegra: bpmp: Implement suspend/resume support")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
> index 41448ba78be9..a3d5b518c10e 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
> @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static int tegra_bpmp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	return err;
>  }
>  
> -static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
> +static int __maybe_unused tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct tegra_bpmp *bpmp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>  	unsigned int i;

Arnd, is this seen with 32-bit ARM configs?

Timo, does it make sense to make BPMP dependent on ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC
and ARCH_TEGRA_194_SOC instead of just ARCH_TEGRA? For 64-bit Tegra we
have a dependency on PM so this should not be seen for 64-bit Tegra.

Cheers
Jon
Timo Alho Oct. 4, 2018, 3:11 p.m. UTC | #2
On 03.10.2018 11:26, Jonathan Hunter wrote:
> 
> On 02/10/18 22:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> The newly added tegra_bpmp_resume function is unused when CONFIG_PM
>> is disabled:
>>
>> drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c:847:12: error: 'tegra_bpmp_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>   static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>
>> Mark it as __maybe_unused to avoid the warning and let the compiler
>> drop it silently.
>>
>> Fixes: cd40f6ff124c ("firmware: tegra: bpmp: Implement suspend/resume support")
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> ---
>>   drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>> index 41448ba78be9..a3d5b518c10e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>> @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static int tegra_bpmp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	return err;
>>   }
>>   
>> -static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>> +static int __maybe_unused tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>   {
>>   	struct tegra_bpmp *bpmp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>   	unsigned int i;
> 
> Arnd, is this seen with 32-bit ARM configs?
> 
> Timo, does it make sense to make BPMP dependent on ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC
> and ARCH_TEGRA_194_SOC instead of just ARCH_TEGRA? For 64-bit Tegra we
> have a dependency on PM so this should not be seen for 64-bit Tegra.

Jon, there will be eventually a BPMP driver for ARCH_TEGRA_210_SOC as 
well. So it is probably more appropriate to make BPMP dependent on ARM64 
& ARCH_TEGRA.

-Timo
Arnd Bergmann Oct. 4, 2018, 3:31 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM Timo Alho <talho@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On 03.10.2018 11:26, Jonathan Hunter wrote:
> > On 02/10/18 22:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> The newly added tegra_bpmp_resume function is unused when CONFIG_PM
> >> is disabled:
> >>
> >> drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c:847:12: error: 'tegra_bpmp_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >>   static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
> >>
> >> Mark it as __maybe_unused to avoid the warning and let the compiler
> >> drop it silently.
> >>
> >> Fixes: cd40f6ff124c ("firmware: tegra: bpmp: Implement suspend/resume support")
> >> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c | 2 +-
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
> >> index 41448ba78be9..a3d5b518c10e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
> >> @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static int tegra_bpmp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>      return err;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> -static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
> >> +static int __maybe_unused tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
> >>   {
> >>      struct tegra_bpmp *bpmp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >>      unsigned int i;
> >
> > Arnd, is this seen with 32-bit ARM configs?

This was with a randconfig build on 64-bit ARM. I don't know exactly
what combination of options caused it.

> > Timo, does it make sense to make BPMP dependent on ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC
> > and ARCH_TEGRA_194_SOC instead of just ARCH_TEGRA? For 64-bit Tegra we
> > have a dependency on PM so this should not be seen for 64-bit Tegra.

CONFIG_PM does not imply CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, so probably it
was just broken for PM=y, PM_SLEEP=n.

> Jon, there will be eventually a BPMP driver for ARCH_TEGRA_210_SOC as
> well. So it is probably more appropriate to make BPMP dependent on ARM64
> & ARCH_TEGRA.

Generally speaking, we are trying to allow building all drivers at least
with CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST, in order to get the best build coverage.

       Arnd
Jon Hunter Oct. 4, 2018, 4:19 p.m. UTC | #4
On 04/10/18 16:31, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM Timo Alho <talho@nvidia.com> wrote:
>> On 03.10.2018 11:26, Jonathan Hunter wrote:
>>> On 02/10/18 22:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> The newly added tegra_bpmp_resume function is unused when CONFIG_PM
>>>> is disabled:
>>>>
>>>> drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c:847:12: error: 'tegra_bpmp_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>>>   static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>>
>>>> Mark it as __maybe_unused to avoid the warning and let the compiler
>>>> drop it silently.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: cd40f6ff124c ("firmware: tegra: bpmp: Implement suspend/resume support")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c | 2 +-
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>>>> index 41448ba78be9..a3d5b518c10e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>>>> @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static int tegra_bpmp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>      return err;
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> -static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>> +static int __maybe_unused tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>>   {
>>>>      struct tegra_bpmp *bpmp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>      unsigned int i;
>>>
>>> Arnd, is this seen with 32-bit ARM configs?
> 
> This was with a randconfig build on 64-bit ARM. I don't know exactly
> what combination of options caused it.
> 
>>> Timo, does it make sense to make BPMP dependent on ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC
>>> and ARCH_TEGRA_194_SOC instead of just ARCH_TEGRA? For 64-bit Tegra we
>>> have a dependency on PM so this should not be seen for 64-bit Tegra.
> 
> CONFIG_PM does not imply CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, so probably it
> was just broken for PM=y, PM_SLEEP=n.

Yes that would make sense.

>> Jon, there will be eventually a BPMP driver for ARCH_TEGRA_210_SOC as
>> well. So it is probably more appropriate to make BPMP dependent on ARM64
>> & ARCH_TEGRA.
> 
> Generally speaking, we are trying to allow building all drivers at least
> with CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST, in order to get the best build coverage.

True. Thinking some more it is fine with me, so ...

Acked-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>

Cheers
Jon

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
index 41448ba78be9..a3d5b518c10e 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
@@ -844,7 +844,7 @@  static int tegra_bpmp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	return err;
 }
 
-static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
+static int __maybe_unused tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
 {
 	struct tegra_bpmp *bpmp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
 	unsigned int i;