Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] memory: Add Broadcom STB memory controller driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 12/08/2022 20:52, Florian Fainelli wrote:

>>> unless you also implied enclosing those functions under an #if
>>> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM) or something which is IMHO less preferable.
>>
>> Are you sure you added also pm_ptr()? I don't see such warnings with W=1
>> and final object does not have the functions (for a different driver but
>> same principle).
> 
> Yes I am sure I added pm_ptr() see the v4 I just submitted. I don't see 
> how the compiler cannot warn about the functions being unused the day 
> they stop being referenced by the pm_ops structure which is eliminated?

I don't have the answer how it exactly works (or which gcc version
introduced it), but I tested it and the functions were not present in
the object file, thus of course no warnings.

The driver change I am referring to is:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220808174107.38676-15-paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

I think the only difference against your v4 is:
DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS
and lack of __maybe_unused on the functions.

The DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS itself adds __maybe_unused for !CONFIG_PM
case, but I don't think it is relevant.

Best regards,
Krzysztof