* [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
@ 2020-12-11 19:03 Randy Dunlap
2020-12-11 20:23 ` Maximilian Luz
2020-12-12 13:24 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2020-12-11 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Randy Dunlap, Maximilian Luz, Hans de Goede, platform-driver-x86
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@infradead.org>
Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
--- linux-next-20201210.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
+++ linux-next-20201210/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
@@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str
return 0;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
{
return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true);
@@ -190,6 +191,7 @@ static int surface_gpe_resume(struct dev
{
return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false);
}
+#endif
static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(surface_gpe_pm, surface_gpe_suspend, surface_gpe_resume);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-11 19:03 [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings Randy Dunlap
@ 2020-12-11 20:23 ` Maximilian Luz
2020-12-11 20:41 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-12 13:24 ` Andy Shevchenko
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Maximilian Luz @ 2020-12-11 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel; +Cc: Hans de Goede, platform-driver-x86
On 12/11/20 8:03 PM, 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@infradead.org>
> Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> --- linux-next-20201210.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
> +++ linux-next-20201210/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str
> return 0;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true);
> @@ -190,6 +191,7 @@ static int surface_gpe_resume(struct dev
> {
> return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false);
> }
> +#endif
>
> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(surface_gpe_pm, surface_gpe_suspend, surface_gpe_resume);
>
>
Right, thanks.
I assume this covers all instances of this warning in platform/surface?
Otherwise, a "platform: surface: gpe: ..." subject would make more sense.
As for the rest:
Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
Regards,
Max
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-11 20:23 ` Maximilian Luz
@ 2020-12-11 20:41 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-11 21:00 ` Maximilian Luz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2020-12-11 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maximilian Luz, linux-kernel; +Cc: Hans de Goede, platform-driver-x86
On 12/11/20 12:23 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> On 12/11/20 8:03 PM, 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@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> --- linux-next-20201210.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>> +++ linux-next-20201210/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>> static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true);
>> @@ -190,6 +191,7 @@ static int surface_gpe_resume(struct dev
>> {
>> return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false);
>> }
>> +#endif
>> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(surface_gpe_pm, surface_gpe_suspend, surface_gpe_resume);
>>
>
> Right, thanks.
>
> I assume this covers all instances of this warning in platform/surface?
> Otherwise, a "platform: surface: gpe: ..." subject would make more sense.
It should cover all of surface/. It was an allmodconfig and then I disabled
CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP etc.
As for prefixes, how many levels do we want to use?
(that's mostly rhetorical, although I would read answers :)
> As for the rest:
>
> Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
thanks.
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-11 20:41 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2020-12-11 21:00 ` Maximilian Luz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Maximilian Luz @ 2020-12-11 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel; +Cc: Hans de Goede, platform-driver-x86
On 12/11/20 9:41 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 12/11/20 12:23 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On 12/11/20 8:03 PM, 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@infradead.org>
>>> Cc: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
>>> ---
>>> drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> --- linux-next-20201210.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>>> +++ linux-next-20201210/drivers/platform/surface/surface_gpe.c
>>> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(str
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>> static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>> {
>>> return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, true);
>>> @@ -190,6 +191,7 @@ static int surface_gpe_resume(struct dev
>>> {
>>> return surface_lid_enable_wakeup(dev, false);
>>> }
>>> +#endif
>>> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(surface_gpe_pm, surface_gpe_suspend, surface_gpe_resume);
>>>
>>
>> Right, thanks.
>>
>> I assume this covers all instances of this warning in platform/surface?
>> Otherwise, a "platform: surface: gpe: ..." subject would make more sense.
>
> It should cover all of surface/. It was an allmodconfig and then I disabled
> CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP etc.
Perfect, thanks!
> As for prefixes, how many levels do we want to use?
> (that's mostly rhetorical, although I would read answers :)
Looking at platform/x86 and past commit messages, I'd prefer something
like
platform/surface: <component>: <message>
This would be similar to the platform/x86 style. So two or three,
depending on how you count "platform/surface". I agree that this
probably tends to get a bit long, so I propose we drop the surface_
prefix on the component part to help with that. So, for example,
"surface_gpe" will become "gpe".
>
>> As for the rest:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
>
> thanks.
>
Regards,
Max
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-11 19:03 [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings Randy Dunlap
2020-12-11 20:23 ` Maximilian Luz
@ 2020-12-12 13:24 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-12-12 17:05 ` Randy Dunlap
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2020-12-12 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Maximilian Luz, Hans de Goede,
Platform Driver
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> 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)
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
Perhaps __maybe_unused ?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-12 13:24 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2020-12-12 17:05 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-12 19:07 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2020-12-12 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Maximilian Luz, Hans de Goede,
Platform Driver
On 12/12/20 5:24 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> 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)
>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ...
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>> static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>
> Perhaps __maybe_unused ?
>
Yes, I am aware of that option.
I don't know why it would be preferred though.
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-12 17:05 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2020-12-12 19:07 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-12-14 0:53 ` Randy Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2020-12-12 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Maximilian Luz, Hans de Goede,
Platform Driver
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> On 12/12/20 5:24 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
...
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >
> > Perhaps __maybe_unused ?
>
> Yes, I am aware of that option.
> I don't know why it would be preferred though.
Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-12 19:07 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2020-12-14 0:53 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-14 11:19 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2020-12-14 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Maximilian Luz, Hans de Goede,
Platform Driver
On 12/12/20 11:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On 12/12/20 5:24 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>>> static int surface_gpe_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>
>>> Perhaps __maybe_unused ?
>>
>> Yes, I am aware of that option.
>> I don't know why it would be preferred though.
>
> Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
>
Thanks for the link. I'll send a v2.
Could we add that to the Linux BKP (Best Known Practices)
document?
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-14 0:53 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2020-12-14 11:19 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-12-14 23:49 ` Randy Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2020-12-14 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Maximilian Luz, Hans de Goede,
Platform Driver
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:53 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> On 12/12/20 11:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
...
> > Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
> >
> Thanks for the link. I'll send a v2.
>
> Could we add that to the Linux BKP (Best Known Practices)
> document?
Perhaps. The author of that is Arnd, maybe he has something to add.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-14 11:19 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2020-12-14 23:49 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-16 10:49 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2020-12-14 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Maximilian Luz, Hans de Goede,
Platform Driver
On 12/14/20 3:19 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:53 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On 12/12/20 11:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
>>>
>> Thanks for the link. I'll send a v2.
>>
>> Could we add that to the Linux BKP (Best Known Practices)
>> document?
>
> Perhaps. The author of that is Arnd, maybe he has something to add.
>
Where is it located? My search foo could not find it.
thanks.
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings
2020-12-14 23:49 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2020-12-16 10:49 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2020-12-16 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Maximilian Luz,
Hans de Goede, Platform Driver
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:49 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> On 12/14/20 3:19 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:53 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> >> On 12/12/20 11:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 7:05 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> Here [1] is the rationale behind annotation vs. ifdeffery.
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/732981/
> >>>
> >> Thanks for the link. I'll send a v2.
> >>
> >> Could we add that to the Linux BKP (Best Known Practices)
> >> document?
> >
> > Perhaps. The author of that is Arnd, maybe he has something to add.
> >
>
> Where is it located? My search foo could not find it.
Closest what I know is [2].
[2]: https://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ/CodingStyle
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-12-16 10:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-12-11 19:03 [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings Randy Dunlap
2020-12-11 20:23 ` Maximilian Luz
2020-12-11 20:41 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-11 21:00 ` Maximilian Luz
2020-12-12 13:24 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-12-12 17:05 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-12 19:07 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-12-14 0:53 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-14 11:19 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-12-14 23:49 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-16 10:49 ` Andy Shevchenko
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).