On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 01:23, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8/12/22 11:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 12/08/2022 20:52, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > >>>> unless you also implied enclosing those functions under an #if > >>>> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) or something which is IMHO less preferable. > >>> > >>> Are you sure you added also pm_ptr()? I don't see such warnings with W=1 > >>> and final object does not have the functions (for a different driver but > >>> same principle). > >> > >> Yes I am sure I added pm_ptr() see the v4 I just submitted. I don't see > >> how the compiler cannot warn about the functions being unused the day > >> they stop being referenced by the pm_ops structure which is eliminated? > > > > I don't have the answer how it exactly works (or which gcc version > > introduced it), but I tested it and the functions were not present in > > the object file, thus of course no warnings. > > > > The driver change I am referring to is: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220808174107.38676-15-paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I think the only difference against your v4 is: > > DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS > > and lack of __maybe_unused on the functions. > > > > The DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS itself adds __maybe_unused for !CONFIG_PM > > case, but I don't think it is relevant. > > It definitively is relevant here. SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS without > __maybe_unused results in the following pre-processed code: > What I was referring to is "__maybe_unused" is not relevant here. The DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS (with pm_ptr()) are the change you need. Best regards, Krzysztof
