On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Felipe Balbi wrote: > not all platforms will use all of those ehci_* > symbols on their hc_driver structure. Sometimes > we might need to provide a modified version of > a certain method or not provide it at all, as is > the case with OMAPs which don't support port handoff > feature. > > Whenever we compile a kernel for an OMAP board with > EHCI enabled, we get compile warnings: > > drivers/usb/host/ehci-hub.c:1079: warning: 'ehci_relinquish_port' \ > defined but not used > drivers/usb/host/ehci-hub.c:1088: warning: 'ehci_port_handed_over' \ > defined but not used > > In order to cleanup those warnings, we're adding > __maybe_unused annotation to those functions. We're > also trying to cope with other platforms which might > have similar issues with different methods by adding > the same annotation to all ehci_* functions. > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > --- > > Alan, what do you think about this patch ? It fixes our warnings > and tries to cope with other possible such cases. Some of this makes sense: ehci_port_change, ehci_relinquish_port, and ehci_port_handed_over are fine. The others are questionable. What reason could there be for not implementing ehci_bus_suspend and ehci_bus_resume? Neither of those should involve much platform-specific work, if any. ehci_hub_status_data, ehci_hub_descriptor, and ehci_hub_control are even more puzzling. These are things that _have_ to be implemented for the driver to work at all. Platform code shouldn't replace them; it most it should call them as subroutines and override the results when necessary. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
