Hey Ben - this patch looks fine to me but I figured I should check before
giving it the OK: I assume we're not planning on using tu102_gr_load for
anything in the future? (if we are, do we want to just #if 0 this for the time
being?)
On Thu, 2023-04-06 at 08:51 -0400, Tom Rix wrote:
> smatch reports
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/gr/tu102.c:210:1: warning: symbol
> 'tu102_gr_load' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> This function is not used so remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/gr/tu102.c | 13 -------------
> 1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/gr/tu102.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/gr/tu102.c
> index 3b6c8100a242..a7775aa18541 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/gr/tu102.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/gr/tu102.c
> @@ -206,19 +206,6 @@ tu102_gr_av_to_init_veid(struct nvkm_blob *blob, struct gf100_gr_pack **ppack)
> return gk20a_gr_av_to_init_(blob, 64, 0x00100000, ppack);
> }
>
> -int
> -tu102_gr_load(struct gf100_gr *gr, int ver, const struct gf100_gr_fwif *fwif)
> -{
> - int ret;
> -
> - ret = gm200_gr_load(gr, ver, fwif);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> -
> - return gk20a_gr_load_net(gr, "gr/", "sw_veid_bundle_init", ver, tu102_gr_av_to_init_veid,
> - &gr->bundle_veid);
> -}
> -
> static const struct gf100_gr_fwif
> tu102_gr_fwif[] = {
> { 0, gm200_gr_load, &tu102_gr, &gp108_gr_fecs_acr, &gp108_gr_gpccs_acr },
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
