Em Ter, 2018-04-10 às 22:01 +0100, Chris Wilson escreveu: > Quoting Paulo Zanoni (2018-04-10 21:39:31) > > Em Ter, 2018-04-10 às 09:51 +0100, Chris Wilson escreveu: > > > Quoting Paulo Zanoni (2018-03-23 17:24:16) > > > > From: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > This table is used for voltage swing programming sequence > > > > during > > > > DDI > > > > Buffer initialization for MG PHY DDI Buffers on Icelake. > > > > > > Except it is not used at all... > > > > It's going to be used later in the series. > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c:601:46: error: > > > ‘icl_mg_phy_ddi_translations’ defined but not used [- > > > Werror=unused- > > > const-variable=] > > > > I have all of the I915 debugging options enabled, including > > CONFIG_DRM_I915_WERROR=y, and I don't get this error. I'm using > > Fedora > > 27's gcc. Would it be the case that you have somehow enabled the > > unused-const-variable warning through some non-traditional way > > that's > > not upstream? > > Try make W=1 (which includes kerneldoc checks!). Or clang (don't try > clang unless you are a masochist, especially not right now as -Wvla > upsets it). > > > If that's the case, and if we decide that we want Werror=unused- > > const- > > variable to block patches from being merged, then I think we should > > put > > this error/warning under the i915 debugging .config options and > > force > > CI to also use them and tell us about them. > > I'm trying to get W=1 as part of the pre-merge warning set, at the > same > level of severity as ignoring checkpatch. Good. Perhaps some CONFIG_I915_DEBUG_SOMETHING option could also force W=1 for us so developers get it for free? > > > Because I'm pretty sure if we start enabling random gcc > > warning/error > > flags we'll be able to block a huge number of patches from being > > upstreamed. I just don't think this is something we should do. > > We do. Our code is clean at W=1 except for the odd mistake. Ok, I'm convinced. I'll add W=1 to my compilation script. If you want we can revert this patch and I'll squash it to the patch that actually uses the table. > Let's keep > it that way. As new gcc warnings are developed, we will squash petty > nuisances and sometimes outright bugs from the code (it has happened > before and will happen again). > -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
