On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:11:09 +0100 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Only this time around I did read !PM not as !PWM and so it became clear what you meant the first time around and why __maybe_unused is required. 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
