lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 6/6] usb: dwc3: exynos: Switch from CONFIG_PM_SLEEP guards to pm_sleep_ptr()
Date
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024, Anand Moon wrote:
> Hi Thinh,
>
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 at 07:24, Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024, Anand Moon wrote:
> > > Use the new PM macros for the suspend and resume functions to be
> > > automatically dropped by the compiler when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP are disabled,
> > > without having to use #ifdef guards. If CONFIG_PM_SLEEP unused,
> > > they will simply be discarded by the compiler.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2: add __maybe_unused to suspend/resume functions in case CONFIG_PM is
> > > disabled.
> >
> > The compiler discards the code, yet we still need __maybe_unused?
> >
> Earlier version had not added this since but I removed the
> guard.CONFIG_PM_SLEEP.
> added __maybe_unused just to safeguard the function.
>
> I have tried to build with config by disabling CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> but could get the warning compilation by adding flag W=1
> -Werror=unused-function.
>

<snip>

>
> But since these CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP cannot be disabled,
> I am not getting any warning related to these functions.
>
> Do you want me to remove __maybe_unused ?
>

The warning was there as expected. You should to use it along with
DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(). Let me know if you still see the same
warning.

BR,
Thinh
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:33    [W:0.066 / U:1.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site