Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 8:55 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>
> When -Woverride-init is enabled in a build, gcc points out that
> qcom_geni_serial_pm_ops contains conflicting initializers:
>
> drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c:1586:20: error: initialized field overwritten [-Werror=override-init]
> 1586 | .restore = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c:1586:20: note: (near initialization for 'qcom_geni_serial_pm_ops.restore')
> drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c:1587:17: error: initialized field overwritten [-Werror=override-init]
> 1587 | .thaw = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Open-code the initializers with the version that was already used,
> and use the pm_sleep_ptr() method to deal with unused ones,
> in place of the __maybe_unused annotation.
>
> Fixes: 35781d8356a2 ("tty: serial: qcom-geni-serial: Add support for Hibernation feature")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c
> index b487823f0e61..03dda47184d9 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c
> @@ -1516,7 +1516,7 @@ static int qcom_geni_serial_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int __maybe_unused qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +static int qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend(struct device *dev)
Officially the removal of "__maybe_unused" could be a totally
different patch, right? SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() already eventually
used pm_sleep_ptr() even without your change, so the removal of these
tags is unrelated to the rest of your change, right?
> {
> struct qcom_geni_serial_port *port = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> struct uart_port *uport = &port->uport;
> @@ -1533,7 +1533,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend(struct device *dev)
> return uart_suspend_port(private_data->drv, uport);
> }
>
> -static int __maybe_unused qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume(struct device *dev)
> +static int qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume(struct device *dev)
> {
> int ret;
> struct qcom_geni_serial_port *port = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> @@ -1581,10 +1581,12 @@ static int qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume(struct device *dev)
> }
>
> static const struct dev_pm_ops qcom_geni_serial_pm_ops = {
> - SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend,
> - qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume)
> - .restore = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
> - .thaw = qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume,
> + .suspend = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend),
> + .resume = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_resume),
> + .freeze = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend),
> + .poweroff = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_suspend),
> + .restore = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume),
> + .thaw = pm_sleep_ptr(qcom_geni_serial_sys_hib_resume),
Personally, the order you listed them is less intuitive than the order
that SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() lists functions. IMO it's better to
consistently alternate matching suspend/resume functions. ;-)
Both of those are nits, so I'm also fine with:
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
