[PATCH] drivers/bus: arm-cci: fix build warnings

[PATCH] drivers/bus: arm-cci: fix build warnings

[Arnd Bergmann]

When the arm-cci driver is enabled, but both CONFIG_ARM_CCI5xx_PMU and
CONFIG_ARM_CCI400_PMU are not, we get a warning about how parts of
the driver are never used:

drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:1454:29: error: 'cci_pmu_models' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-variable]
drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:693:16: error: 'cci_pmu_event_show' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:685:16: error: 'cci_pmu_format_show' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]

Marking all three functions as __maybe_unused avoids the warnings in
randconfig builds. I'm doing this lacking any ideas for a better fix.

Fixes: 3de6be7a3dd8 ("drivers/bus: Split Arm CCI driver")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 drivers/perf/arm-cci.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm-cci.c b/drivers/perf/arm-cci.c
index e6fadc8e1178..0d09d8e669cd 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/arm-cci.c
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm-cci.c
@@ -120,9 +120,9 @@ enum cci_models {
 
 static void pmu_write_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu,
 				 unsigned long *mask);
-static ssize_t cci_pmu_format_show(struct device *dev,
+static ssize_t __maybe_unused cci_pmu_format_show(struct device *dev,
 			struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf);
-static ssize_t cci_pmu_event_show(struct device *dev,
+static ssize_t __maybe_unused cci_pmu_event_show(struct device *dev,
 			struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf);
 
 #define CCI_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(_name, _func, _config) 				\
@@ -1451,7 +1451,7 @@ static int cci_pmu_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static struct cci_pmu_model cci_pmu_models[] = {
+static __maybe_unused struct cci_pmu_model cci_pmu_models[] = {
 #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CCI400_PMU
 	[CCI400_R0] = {
 		.name = "CCI_400",
-- 
2.9.0

Re: [PATCH] drivers/bus: arm-cci: fix build warnings

[Robin Murphy]

On 28/05/18 16:41, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> When the arm-cci driver is enabled, but both CONFIG_ARM_CCI5xx_PMU and
> CONFIG_ARM_CCI400_PMU are not, we get a warning about how parts of
> the driver are never used:
> 
> drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:1454:29: error: 'cci_pmu_models' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-variable]
> drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:693:16: error: 'cci_pmu_event_show' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:685:16: error: 'cci_pmu_format_show' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> 
> Marking all three functions as __maybe_unused avoids the warnings in
> randconfig builds. I'm doing this lacking any ideas for a better fix.

Yeah, it's a bit of a silly configuration to allow building a driver 
supporting no PMU types, but I couldn't find a way to enforce "at least 
one sub-option enabled" logic without introducing mutually-exclusive 
dependencies which kbuild thinks are recursive.

An alternative would be to remove the CCI400/CCI5x0 configurability 
altogether - I've not not looked in detail at how much difference that 
actually makes.

Otherwise, as an immediate quick-fix:

Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>

Thanks,
Robin.

> Fixes: 3de6be7a3dd8 ("drivers/bus: Split Arm CCI driver")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
>   drivers/perf/arm-cci.c | 6 +++---
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm-cci.c b/drivers/perf/arm-cci.c
> index e6fadc8e1178..0d09d8e669cd 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm-cci.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm-cci.c
> @@ -120,9 +120,9 @@ enum cci_models {
>   
>   static void pmu_write_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu,
>   				 unsigned long *mask);
> -static ssize_t cci_pmu_format_show(struct device *dev,
> +static ssize_t __maybe_unused cci_pmu_format_show(struct device *dev,
>   			struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf);
> -static ssize_t cci_pmu_event_show(struct device *dev,
> +static ssize_t __maybe_unused cci_pmu_event_show(struct device *dev,
>   			struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf);
>   
>   #define CCI_EXT_ATTR_ENTRY(_name, _func, _config) 				\
> @@ -1451,7 +1451,7 @@ static int cci_pmu_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> -static struct cci_pmu_model cci_pmu_models[] = {
> +static __maybe_unused struct cci_pmu_model cci_pmu_models[] = {
>   #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CCI400_PMU
>   	[CCI400_R0] = {
>   		.name = "CCI_400",
> 

Re: [PATCH] drivers/bus: arm-cci: fix build warnings

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:34:01PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 28/05/18 16:41, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >When the arm-cci driver is enabled, but both CONFIG_ARM_CCI5xx_PMU and
> >CONFIG_ARM_CCI400_PMU are not, we get a warning about how parts of
> >the driver are never used:
> >
> >drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:1454:29: error: 'cci_pmu_models' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-variable]
> >drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:693:16: error: 'cci_pmu_event_show' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >drivers/perf/arm-cci.c:685:16: error: 'cci_pmu_format_show' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >
> >Marking all three functions as __maybe_unused avoids the warnings in
> >randconfig builds. I'm doing this lacking any ideas for a better fix.
> 
> Yeah, it's a bit of a silly configuration to allow building a driver
> supporting no PMU types, but I couldn't find a way to enforce "at least one
> sub-option enabled" logic without introducing mutually-exclusive
> dependencies which kbuild thinks are recursive.
> 
> An alternative would be to remove the CCI400/CCI5x0 configurability
> altogether - I've not not looked in detail at how much difference that
> actually makes.
> 
> Otherwise, as an immediate quick-fix:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>

I'll pick this one up into the arm perf tree.

Will