On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:51:31 +0100 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:17:47AM +0100, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:03:05 +0100 > > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > > > +static void mvebu_pwm_suspend(struct mvebu_gpio_chip *mvchip) > > > > +static void mvebu_pwm_resume(struct mvebu_gpio_chip *mvchip) > > > > > > I think both of these need to be tagged __maybe_unused to not give > > > noise in randconfig builds. > > > > I haven't seen any warnings with CONFIG_PWM disabled. Which > > configuration you expect to trigger a warning? mvebu_pwm_probe > > should be the same, right? > > It's got nothing to do with CONFIG_PWM and as far as I can tell your > usage of IS_ENABLED() is fine here. However, if you try building the > driver with a !PM configuration, both *_suspend() and *_resume() end > up being unused and giving you a warning. > > Thierry What is a !PM configuration if not "# CONFIG_PWM is not set" in .config? I'd really like to trigger those warnings myself respectively understand where they come from. Thanks Ralph -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
