diff mbox series

[-next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings

Message ID 20201211190335.16501-1-rdunlap@infradead.org (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested, archived
Headers show
Series [-next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings | expand

Commit Message

Randy Dunlap Dec. 11, 2020, 7:03 p.m. UTC
Fix build warnings when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not enabled and these
functions are not used:

../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:189:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
 static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev)
            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:184:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
 static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fixes: 274335f1c557 ("platform/surface: Add Driver to set up lid GPEs on MS Surface device")
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
---
 drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

Maximilian Luz Dec. 11, 2020, 8:23 p.m. UTC | #1
On 12/11/20 8:03 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Fix build warnings when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not enabled and these
> functions are not used:
> 
> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:189:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>   static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev)
>              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:184:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>   static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Fixes: 274335f1c557 ("platform/surface: Add Driver to set up lid GPEs on MS Surface device")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>   drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c |    2 ++
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> --- linux-next-20201210.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
> +++ linux-next-20201210/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>   static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>   {
>   	return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true);
> @@ -190,6 +191,7 @@ static int surface_gpe_resume(struct dev
>   {
>   	return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false);
>   }
> +#endif
>   
>   static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(surface_gpe_pm, surface_gpe_suspend, surface_gpe_resume);
>   
> 

Right, thanks.

I assume this covers all instances of this warning in platform/surface?
Otherwise, a "platform: surface: gpe: ..." subject would make more sense.

As for the rest:

Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>

Regards,
Max
Randy Dunlap Dec. 11, 2020, 8:41 p.m. UTC | #2
On 12/11/20 12:23 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> On 12/11/20 8:03 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Fix build warnings when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not enabled and these
>> functions are not used:
>>
>> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:189:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>>   static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev)
>>              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:184:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>>   static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Fixes: 274335f1c557 ("platform/surface: Add Driver to set up lid GPEs on MS Surface device")
>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>>   drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c |    2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> --- linux-next-20201210.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>> +++ linux-next-20201210/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str
>>       return 0;
>>   }
>>   +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>   static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>   {
>>       return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true);
>> @@ -190,6 +191,7 @@ static int surface_gpe_resume(struct dev
>>   {
>>       return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false);
>>   }
>> +#endif
>>     static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(surface_gpe_pm, surface_gpe_suspend, surface_gpe_resume);
>>  
> 
> Right, thanks.
> 
> I assume this covers all instances of this warning in platform/surface?
> Otherwise, a "platform: surface: gpe: ..." subject would make more sense.

It should cover all of surface/. It was an allmodconfig and then I disabled
CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP etc.

As for prefixes, how many levels do we want to use?
(that's mostly rhetorical, although I would read answers :)

> As for the rest:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>

thanks.
Maximilian Luz Dec. 11, 2020, 9 p.m. UTC | #3
On 12/11/20 9:41 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 12/11/20 12:23 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On 12/11/20 8:03 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> Fix build warnings when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not enabled and these
>>> functions are not used:
>>>
>>> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:189:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>>>    static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:184:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>>>    static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Fixes: 274335f1c557 ("platform/surface: Add Driver to set up lid GPEs on MS Surface device")
>>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
>>> Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c |    2 ++
>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> --- linux-next-20201210.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>>> +++ linux-next-20201210/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>>> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str
>>>        return 0;
>>>    }
>>>    +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>>    static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>    {
>>>        return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true);
>>> @@ -190,6 +191,7 @@ static int surface_gpe_resume(struct dev
>>>    {
>>>        return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false);
>>>    }
>>> +#endif
>>>      static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(surface_gpe_pm, surface_gpe_suspend, surface_gpe_resume);
>>>   
>>
>> Right, thanks.
>>
>> I assume this covers all instances of this warning in platform/surface?
>> Otherwise, a "platform: surface: gpe: ..." subject would make more sense.
> 
> It should cover all of surface/. It was an allmodconfig and then I disabled
> CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP etc.

Perfect, thanks!

> As for prefixes, how many levels do we want to use?
> (that's mostly rhetorical, although I would read answers :)

Looking at platform/x86 and past commit messages, I'd prefer something
like

     platform/surface: <component>: <message>

This would be similar to the platform/x86 style. So two or three,
depending on how you count "platform/surface". I agree that this
probably tends to get a bit long, so I propose we drop the surface_
prefix on the component part to help with that. So, for example,
"surface_gpe" will become "gpe".

> 
>> As for the rest:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
> 
> thanks.
> 

Regards,
Max
Andy Shevchenko Dec. 12, 2020, 1:24 p.m. UTC | #4
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> Fix build warnings when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not enabled and these
> functions are not used:
>
> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:189:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>  static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev)
>             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:184:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>  static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...

> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>  static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)

Perhaps __maybe_unused ?
Randy Dunlap Dec. 12, 2020, 5:05 p.m. UTC | #5
On 12/12/20 5:24 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Fix build warnings when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not enabled and these
>> functions are not used:
>>
>> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:189:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>>  static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev)
>>             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:184:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>>  static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> ...
> 
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>  static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
> 
> Perhaps __maybe_unused ?
> 

Yes, I am aware of that option.
I don't know why it would be preferred though.
Andy Shevchenko Dec. 12, 2020, 7:07 p.m. UTC | #6
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> On 12/12/20 5:24 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:

...

> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >>  static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >
> > Perhaps __maybe_unused ?
>
> Yes, I am aware of that option.
> I don't know why it would be preferred though.

Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
Randy Dunlap Dec. 14, 2020, 12:53 a.m. UTC | #7
On 12/12/20 11:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On 12/12/20 5:24 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>>>  static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>
>>> Perhaps __maybe_unused ?
>>
>> Yes, I am aware of that option.
>> I don't know why it would be preferred though.
> 
> Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
>
Thanks for the link.  I'll send a v2.

Could we add that to the Linux BKP (Best Known Practices)
document?
Andy Shevchenko Dec. 14, 2020, 11:19 a.m. UTC | #8
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:53 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> On 12/12/20 11:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:

...

> > Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
> >
> Thanks for the link.  I'll send a v2.
>
> Could we add that to the Linux BKP (Best Known Practices)
> document?

Perhaps. The author of that is Arnd, maybe he has something to add.
Randy Dunlap Dec. 14, 2020, 11:49 p.m. UTC | #9
On 12/14/20 3:19 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:53 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On 12/12/20 11:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
>>>
>> Thanks for the link.  I'll send a v2.
>>
>> Could we add that to the Linux BKP (Best Known Practices)
>> document?
> 
> Perhaps. The author of that is Arnd, maybe he has something to add.
> 

Where is it located?  My search foo could not find it.

thanks.
Andy Shevchenko Dec. 16, 2020, 10:49 a.m. UTC | #10
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:49 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> On 12/14/20 3:19 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:53 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> >> On 12/12/20 11:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
> >>>
> >> Thanks for the link.  I'll send a v2.
> >>
> >> Could we add that to the Linux BKP (Best Known Practices)
> >> document?
> >
> > Perhaps. The author of that is Arnd, maybe he has something to add.
> >
>
> Where is it located?  My search foo could not find it.

Closest what I know is [2].

[2]: https://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ/CodingStyle



--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
diff mbox series

Patch

--- linux-next-20201210.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
+++ linux-next-20201210/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
@@ -181,6 +181,7 @@  static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str
 	return 0;
 }
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
 static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
 {
 	return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true);
@@ -190,6 +191,7 @@  static int surface_gpe_resume(struct dev
 {
 	return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false);
 }
+#endif
 
 static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(surface_gpe_pm, surface_gpe_suspend, surface_gpe_resume);