arm64: Fix UP build warning in gic-v3

The static routines gic_write_sgi1r() and gic_peek_irq() are only used for SMP
builds, so move those two routines to within the defined(CONFIG_SMP)
preprocessor conditional.

Fixes build warnings like these when CONFIG_SMP=n:

  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c: warning: ‘gic_write_sgi1r’ defined but not used
  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c: warning: ‘gic_peek_irq’ defined but not used

Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand <geoff@infradead.org>
---
Hi Marc,

I'm not sure if this has gone upstream yet, but I get these warnings
with Catalin's current arm64/for-next/core branch.

Feel free to just fold this into your gic-v3 patch if you'll be sending out
a new version.

-Geoff

 drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

On Mon, Jul 28 2014 at 11:55:59 pm BST, Geoff Levand <geoff@infradead.org> wrote:
> The static routines gic_write_sgi1r() and gic_peek_irq() are only used for SMP
> builds, so move those two routines to within the defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> preprocessor conditional.
>
> Fixes build warnings like these when CONFIG_SMP=n:
>
>   drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c: warning: ‘gic_write_sgi1r’ defined but not used
>   drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c: warning: ‘gic_peek_irq’ defined but not used
>
> Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand <geoff@infradead.org>
> ---
> Hi Marc,
>
> I'm not sure if this has gone upstream yet, but I get these warnings
> with Catalin's current arm64/for-next/core branch.
>
> Feel free to just fold this into your gic-v3 patch if you'll be
> sending out a new version.

Hi Geof,

There is a similar patch from Mark Brown on its way (not addressing
gic_write_sgi1r though).

Thanks,

	M.
>
> -Geoff
>
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> index 57eaa5a..e9ee18a 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> @@ -129,11 +129,6 @@ static void gic_write_grpen1(u64 val)
>  	isb();
>  }
>  
> -static void gic_write_sgi1r(u64 val)
> -{
> -	asm volatile("msr_s " __stringify(ICC_SGI1R_EL1) ", %0" : : "r" (val));
> -}
> -
>  static void gic_enable_sre(void)
>  {
>  	u64 val;
> @@ -200,19 +195,6 @@ static void gic_poke_irq(struct irq_data *d, u32 offset)
>  	rwp_wait();
>  }
>  
> -static int gic_peek_irq(struct irq_data *d, u32 offset)
> -{
> -	u32 mask = 1 << (gic_irq(d) % 32);
> -	void __iomem *base;
> -
> -	if (gic_irq_in_rdist(d))
> -		base = gic_data_rdist_sgi_base();
> -	else
> -		base = gic_data.dist_base;
> -
> -	return !!(readl_relaxed(base + offset + (gic_irq(d) / 32) * 4) & mask);
> -}
> -
>  static void gic_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>  {
>  	gic_poke_irq(d, GICD_ICENABLER);
> @@ -401,6 +383,24 @@ static void gic_cpu_init(void)
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static void gic_write_sgi1r(u64 val)
> +{
> +	asm volatile("msr_s " __stringify(ICC_SGI1R_EL1) ", %0" : : "r" (val));
> +}
> +
> +static int gic_peek_irq(struct irq_data *d, u32 offset)
> +{
> +	u32 mask = 1 << (gic_irq(d) % 32);
> +	void __iomem *base;
> +
> +	if (gic_irq_in_rdist(d))
> +		base = gic_data_rdist_sgi_base();
> +	else
> +		base = gic_data.dist_base;
> +
> +	return !!(readl_relaxed(base + offset + (gic_irq(d) / 32) * 4) & mask);
> +}
> +
>  static int gic_secondary_init(struct notifier_block *nfb,
>  			      unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
>  {

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57:16PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:

> There is a similar patch from Mark Brown on its way (not addressing
> gic_write_sgi1r though).

Right, I was thinking that was better fixed by making all those
access functions static inline instead, I didn't get round to looking at
that properly yet though so didn't send a patch.  Moving the one
accessor function felt like it was the wrong way to go but that's just
taste.

On Tue, Jul 29 2014 at  1:03:17 pm BST, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57:16PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
>> There is a similar patch from Mark Brown on its way (not addressing
>> gic_write_sgi1r though).
>
> Right, I was thinking that was better fixed by making all those
> access functions static inline instead, I didn't get round to looking at
> that properly yet though so didn't send a patch.  Moving the one
> accessor function felt like it was the wrong way to go but that's just
> taste.

I don't mind either way. As long as no annoying warning is produced, I'm
cool with it.

	M.