On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 11:20:40AM +0100, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> Hi Conor,
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 10:17 AM <Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/10/2022 09:58, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > >
> > > On 5 October 2022 09:44:56 IST, "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> Hi Conor,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for the review.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:43 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>> +static void cpu_dcache_wb_range(unsigned long start,
> > >>>> + unsigned long end,
> > >>>> + int line_size)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> + bool ucctl_ok = false;
> > >>>> + unsigned long pa;
> > >>>> + int mhartid = 0;
> > >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >>>> + mhartid = smp_processor_id();
> > >>>> +#endif
> > >>>
> > >>> Won't this produce complaints from your if you compile with CONFIG_SMP
> > >>> set?
> > >>>
> > >> No I dont see a build issue with SMP enabled, do you see any reason
> > >> why it should fail?
> > >
> > > Not fail but complain about the unused variable.
> > >
> >
> > Not unused variable, sorry but the unused 0 that it was initialised with*
>
> No, it doesn't complain (I dont think compilers complain of such
> unused assignments, maybe I'm wrong). BTW I am using GCC 9.4.0. Do you
> think I need to update it?
Maybe it's sparse that generates those warnings, I never know which it
is...
