On 12/15/20 11:55 AM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> On 12/15/20 12:33 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Fix build warnings when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP is not enabled and these
>> functions are not used:
>>
>> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:189:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>> static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev)
>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ../drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c:184:12: warning: ‘surface_gpe_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>> static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Fixes: 274335f1c557 ("platform/surface: Add Driver to set up lid GPEs on MS Surface device")
>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> v2: dropped Maximilian's RVB tag since the patch changed
>> use preferred __maybe_unused instead of ifdeffery:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
>>
>> drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- linux-next-20201214.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>> +++ linux-next-20201214/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>> @@ -181,12 +181,12 @@ static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str
>> return 0;
>> }
>> -static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> +static int __maybe_unused surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true);
>> }
>> -static int surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev)
>> +static int __maybe_unused surface_gpe_resume(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false);
>> }
>>
>
> Code looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> As already mentioned before, I'd prefer the subject line to be
> "platform/surface: gpe: ...", or at least "platform/surface: ..." for
> consistency with other commits. May just be a personal preference
> though, so nothing that should prevent it from being applied.
>
Ugh, sorry about that. I've changed that in the patch so if I ever
resend it, it will be fixed.
--
~Randy
