Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:38:54 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/13] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Remove unused ID structs |
| |
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-07-15 13:16, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:50 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:34 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:27 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15-07-20, 08:54, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 14-07-20, 22:03, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 4:51 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can't see them being used anywhere and the compiler doesn't complain > > > > > > > > > > > > that they're missing, so ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aren't they needed for automatic module loading in certain configurations? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any idea how that works, or where the code is for that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() thingy creates a map of vendor-id, > > > > > > > > > product-id that the kernel keeps after boot (and so there is no static > > > > > > > > > reference of it for the compiler), later when a device is hotplugged > > > > > > > > > into the kernel it refers to the map to find the related driver for it > > > > > > > > > and loads it if it isn't already loaded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has some of it, search for MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() in it. > > > > > > > > > Documentation/driver-api/usb/hotplug.rst > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you just need to add __maybe_unused to them to suppress the > > > > > > > > warning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't that cause the compiler to optimize them away if it doesn't > > > > > > > see any users? > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like they're only unused when !MODULE, > > > > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > > > > > in which case optimising them away would be the correct thing to do, no? > > > > > > > > It would be good if someone with a little more knowledge could provide > > > > a second opinion though. I would think (hope) that the compiler would > > > > be smart enough to see when its actually in use. After all, it is the > > > > compiler that places the information into the device table. > > > > > > > If that is not the case, then the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() magic is > > > > broken and will need fixing. > > > > > > I'm not sure why that would be the case? > > > > Nor me. In fact, take a look at my latest email. I think I just > > proved out that it's not broken. The warning is valid and > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() appears to work just as it should. > > I won't claim to be an expert at all, but... > > For !MODULE, MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() expands to nothing, so after > preprocessing the static variable is literally unreferenced. > > Otherwise, MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() emits an extern declaration of another > variable which is defined via the "alias" attribute to refer to the symbol > of the static variable. Thus the compiler presumably has to treat it as > potentially accessible from other compilation units such that it can't be > optimised away.
Right. That's essentially how I'm reading it.
> > > > Removing boiler-plate is good, but not at the expense of obfuscation. > > > > > > I'm not following you here to be honest. > > > > Never mind. It's no longer important. > > > > > BTW, I'm wondering if removing the "static" modifier from the > > > definitions of the structures in question makes the warnings you want > > > to get rid of go away. > > > > I'm sure that it would. But that just alludes to the fact that the > > tables may be in use elsewhere, which in the case of !MODULE is > > untrue. That's probably more of a hack than using __maybe_unused. > > Right, that just ends up with someone sending another patch changing it back > to shut up "variable foo was not declared, should it be static?" warnings > from Sparse ;)
Exactly.
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |