Re: [PATCH] firmware: tegra-bpmp: mark PM function as __maybe_unused

[Timo Alho]

On 03.10.2018 11:26, Jonathan Hunter wrote:
> On 02/10/18 22:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The newly added tegra_bpmp_resume function is unused when CONFIG_PM
> > is disabled:
> >
> > drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c:847:12: error: 'tegra_bpmp_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >   static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
> >
> > Mark it as __maybe_unused to avoid the warning and let the compiler
> > drop it silently.
> >
> > Fixes: cd40f6ff124c ("firmware: tegra: bpmp: Implement suspend/resume support")
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
> > index 41448ba78be9..a3d5b518c10e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/tegra/bpmp.c
> > @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static int tegra_bpmp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >   	return err;
> >   }
> >   
> > -static int tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
> > +static int __maybe_unused tegra_bpmp_resume(struct device *dev)
> >   {
> >   	struct tegra_bpmp *bpmp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >   	unsigned int i;
>
> Arnd, is this seen with 32-bit ARM configs?
>
> Timo, does it make sense to make BPMP dependent on ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC
> and ARCH_TEGRA_194_SOC instead of just ARCH_TEGRA? For 64-bit Tegra we
> have a dependency on PM so this should not be seen for 64-bit Tegra.

Jon, there will be eventually a BPMP driver for ARCH_TEGRA_210_SOC as 
well. So it is probably more appropriate to make BPMP dependent on ARM64 
& ARCH_TEGRA.

-Timo