Re: [PATCH -next] platform: surface: fix non-PM_SLEEP build warnings

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>]

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