On 5/4/21 10:44 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 8:40 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> With CONFIG_ACPI=n and -Werror, 0-day reports: >> >> drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_i2c.c:46:36: error: >> 'bme680_acpi_match' defined but not used > >> Given the other patch, question of course is if this ACPI ID >> is real. A Google search suggests that this might not be the case. >> Should we remove it as well ? STK8312 has the same problem. > > For this one definitely removal. Looking into the code it suggests a > cargo cult taken that time by a few contributors to invent fake ACPI > IDs while submitting new drivers. > Feel free to add my tag or if you wish me I'll add it explicitly. > I'll resend and let you add the tag, and send a similar patch for STK8312. I'll wait until tomorrow, though - I sent a number of patches today already, and I want to avoid yet another "account suspended" notice from gmail. Thanks, Guenter
