[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] drivers, usb, gadget: fix compiler warnings for at91_udc.c

From: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] drivers, usb, gadget: fix compiler warnings for at91_udc.c
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:49:32 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170623134932.GB27196@bill-the-cat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <594D1837.2020305@denx.de>

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 03:31:35PM +0200, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> Hello Lukasz,
> 
> Am 23.06.2017 um 14:50 schrieb Lukasz Majewski:
> >Hi Heiko,
> >
> >>fix warnings:
> >>drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c:1344:12: warning: 'at91rm9200_udc_init'
> >>defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
> >>drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c:1379:13: warning:
> >>'at91rm9200_udc_pullup' defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
> >>drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c:1476:12: warning:
> >>'at91sam9263_udc_init' defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
> >>---
> >>
> >>  drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c | 30 +++---------------------------
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c
> >>b/drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c index 01a5907..85bfbf5 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c
> >>@@ -1341,7 +1341,7 @@ static int at91_stop(struct usb_gadget *gadget)
> >>
> >>  /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
> >>
> >>-static int at91rm9200_udc_init(struct at91_udc *udc)
> >>+static __maybe_unused int at91rm9200_udc_init(struct at91_udc *udc)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct at91_ep *ep;
> >>  	int ret;
> >>@@ -1376,7 +1376,8 @@ static int at91rm9200_udc_init(struct at91_udc
> >>*udc) return 0;
> >>  }
> >>
> >>-static void at91rm9200_udc_pullup(struct at91_udc *udc, int is_on)
> >>+static __maybe_unused
> >>+void at91rm9200_udc_pullup(struct at91_udc *udc, int is_on)
> >>  {
> >>  	int active = !udc->board.pullup_active_low;
> >>
> >>@@ -1473,31 +1474,6 @@ static const struct at91_udc_caps
> >>at91sam9261_udc_caps = { };
> >>  #endif
> >>
> >>-static int at91sam9263_udc_init(struct at91_udc *udc)
> >
> >I'm a bit puzzled...
> >
> >For the at91rm9200 related boards it is enough to add __maybe_unused
> >and leave the unused function in the source code.
> >
> >Hence, I'm wondering why do you remove the function for at91sam9263?
> >
> >Shouldn't all be removed or have added __maybe_unused ?
> 
> Hmm.. No, it seems there are no users for the at91sam9263_udc_init()
> 
> pollux:u-boot hs [master] $ grep -lr at91sam9263_udc_init .
> ./drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c
> pollux:u-boot hs [master] $
> 
> And in ./drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c it is only defined, but not used...

So in sum, a v2 to drop this now unused code then, yes?  Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20170623/36af67ed/attachment.sig>