On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:51 PM, 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. Yes I was referring to the !PM case. Those are not found by zeroday builds. But they are found a couple of days later by Arnd Bergmann running randconfig builds. Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
