Re: [PATCH -next] scsi: ufs: fix build warning without CONFIG_PM

From: Bart Van Assche
Date: Mon Jul 26 2021 - 13:59:48 EST


On 6/11/21 6:06 AM, YueHaibing wrote:
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c:9770:12: warning: ‘ufshcd_rpmb_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
static int ufshcd_rpmb_resume(struct device *dev)
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c:9037:12: warning: ‘ufshcd_wl_runtime_resume’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
static int ufshcd_wl_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c:9017:12: warning: ‘ufshcd_wl_runtime_suspend’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
static int ufshcd_wl_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Move it into #ifdef block to fix this.

Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
index b87ff68aa9aa..0c54589e186a 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
@@ -8926,6 +8926,7 @@ static int __ufshcd_wl_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba, enum ufs_pm_op pm_op)
return ret;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
static int __ufshcd_wl_resume(struct ufs_hba *hba, enum ufs_pm_op pm_op)
{
int ret;
@@ -9053,7 +9054,6 @@ static int ufshcd_wl_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
return ret;
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
static int ufshcd_wl_suspend(struct device *dev)
{
struct scsi_device *sdev = to_scsi_device(dev);
@@ -9766,6 +9766,7 @@ static inline int ufshcd_clear_rpmb_uac(struct ufs_hba *hba)
return ret;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
static int ufshcd_rpmb_resume(struct device *dev)
{
struct ufs_hba *hba = wlun_dev_to_hba(dev);
@@ -9774,6 +9775,7 @@ static int ufshcd_rpmb_resume(struct device *dev)
ufshcd_clear_rpmb_uac(hba);
return 0;
}
+#endif
static const struct dev_pm_ops ufs_rpmb_pm_ops = {
SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(NULL, ufshcd_rpmb_resume, NULL)

Hi YueHaibing,

Can you take a look at https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20210722033439.26550-1-bvanassche@xxxxxxx/T/#m6e7a02fc79634b5b77cfb77849253ac41d021389? I let the kernel robot verify that patch before I posted it on the linux-scsi mailing list.

Thanks,

Bart.