On 04/10/18 16:31, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM Timo Alho <talho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 03.10.2018 11:26, Jonathan Hunter wrote:
>>> On 02/10/18 22:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> The newly added tegra_bpmp_resume function is unused when CONFIG_PM
>>>> is disabled:
>>>>
>>>> drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c:847:12: error: 'tegra_bpmp_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>>> static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>>
>>>> Mark it as __maybe_unused to avoid the warning and let the compiler
>>>> drop it silently.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: cd40f6ff124c ("firmware: tegra: bpmp: Implement suspend/resume support")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>>>> index 41448ba78be9..a3d5b518c10e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
>>>> @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static int tegra_bpmp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> return err;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>> +static int __maybe_unused tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>> {
>>>> struct tegra_bpmp *bpmp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>> unsigned int i;
>>>
>>> Arnd, is this seen with 32-bit ARM configs?
>
> This was with a randconfig build on 64-bit ARM. I don't know exactly
> what combination of options caused it.
>
>>> Timo, does it make sense to make BPMP dependent on ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC
>>> and ARCH_TEGRA_194_SOC instead of just ARCH_TEGRA? For 64-bit Tegra we
>>> have a dependency on PM so this should not be seen for 64-bit Tegra.
>
> CONFIG_PM does not imply CONFIG_PM_SLEEP, so probably it
> was just broken for PM=y, PM_SLEEP=n.
Yes that would make sense.
>> Jon, there will be eventually a BPMP driver for ARCH_TEGRA_210_SOC as
>> well. So it is probably more appropriate to make BPMP dependent on ARM64
>> & ARCH_TEGRA.
>
> Generally speaking, we are trying to allow building all drivers at least
> with CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST, in order to get the best build coverage.
True. Thinking some more it is fine with me, so ...
Acked-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cheers
Jon
--
nvpublic
