build errors listed below and reported for the builds of
riscv, s390, csky, alpha and loongarch allmodconfig are fixed in
this patch.
drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:311:12: error: 'pci1xxxx_gpio_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
311 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:295:12: error: 'pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
295 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fixes: 4ec7ac90ff39 ("misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add power management functions - suspend & resume handlers.")
Reported-by: Sudip Mukherjee <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kumaravel Thiagarajan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c b/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c
index 9cc771c604ed..4cd541166b0c 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static int pci1xxxx_gpio_probe(struct auxiliary_device *aux_dev,
return devm_gpiochip_add_data(&aux_dev->dev, &priv->gpio, priv);
}
-static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(pci1xxxx_gpio_pm_ops, pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend, pci1xxxx_gpio_resume);
+static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(pci1xxxx_gpio_pm_ops, pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend, pci1xxxx_gpio_resume);
static const struct auxiliary_device_id pci1xxxx_gpio_auxiliary_id_table[] = {
{.name = "mchp_pci1xxxx_gp.gp_gpio"},
--
2.25.1
On 9/12/22 18:36, Kumaravel Thiagarajan wrote:
> build errors listed below and reported for the builds of
> riscv, s390, csky, alpha and loongarch allmodconfig are fixed in
> this patch.
>
> drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:311:12: error: 'pci1xxxx_gpio_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> 311 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:295:12: error: 'pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> 295 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
What about this description?:
"Sudip reported unused function errors on riscv, s390, cksy, alpha,
and loongarch (allmodconfig):
<pci1xxxx_gpio_* errors>...
Fix these errors by using DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS."
> Fixes: 4ec7ac90ff39 ("misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add power management functions - suspend & resume handlers.")
> Reported-by: Sudip Mukherjee <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kumaravel Thiagarajan <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c b/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c
> index 9cc771c604ed..4cd541166b0c 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c
> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static int pci1xxxx_gpio_probe(struct auxiliary_device *aux_dev,
> return devm_gpiochip_add_data(&aux_dev->dev, &priv->gpio, priv);
> }
>
> -static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(pci1xxxx_gpio_pm_ops, pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend, pci1xxxx_gpio_resume);
> +static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(pci1xxxx_gpio_pm_ops, pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend, pci1xxxx_gpio_resume);
>
> static const struct auxiliary_device_id pci1xxxx_gpio_auxiliary_id_table[] = {
> {.name = "mchp_pci1xxxx_gp.gp_gpio"},
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 7:15 PM
> To: Kumaravel Thiagarajan - I21417
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: use
> DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in place of the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in
> pci1xxxx's gpio driver
>
> On 9/12/22 18:36, Kumaravel Thiagarajan wrote:
> > build errors listed below and reported for the builds of riscv, s390,
> > csky, alpha and loongarch allmodconfig are fixed in this patch.
> >
> > drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:311:12: error:
> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> > 311 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:295:12: error:
> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> > 295 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
>
> What about this description?:
>
> "Sudip reported unused function errors on riscv, s390, cksy, alpha, and
> loongarch (allmodconfig):
> <pci1xxxx_gpio_* errors>...
>
> Fix these errors by using DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS."
It looks good even though it does not include all the details.
But is not how much of detail good enough subjective?
I thought some might be looking for more information and chose this way.
Do you think I need to change this? Please let me know.
>
> > Fixes: 4ec7ac90ff39 ("misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add power management
> > functions - suspend & resume handlers.")
> > Reported-by: Sudip Mukherjee <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Kumaravel Thiagarajan
> > <[email protected]>
> > ---
.
.
Thank You.
Regards,
Kumaravel
On 9/14/22 01:27, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 9/12/22 18:36, Kumaravel Thiagarajan wrote:
>>> build errors listed below and reported for the builds of riscv, s390,
>>> csky, alpha and loongarch allmodconfig are fixed in this patch.
>>>
>>> drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:311:12: error:
>> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>> 311 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:295:12: error:
>> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>> 295 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>
>> What about this description?:
>>
>> "Sudip reported unused function errors on riscv, s390, cksy, alpha, and
>> loongarch (allmodconfig):
>> <pci1xxxx_gpio_* errors>...
>>
>> Fix these errors by using DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS."
> It looks good even though it does not include all the details.
> But is not how much of detail good enough subjective?
> I thought some might be looking for more information and chose this way.
> Do you think I need to change this? Please let me know.
Yes, with full error text as Sudip had reported.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:30 AM
> To: Kumaravel Thiagarajan - I21417
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH char-misc-next] misc: microchip: pci1xxxx: use
> DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in place of the SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() in
> pci1xxxx's gpio driver
>
> On 9/14/22 01:27, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On 9/12/22 18:36, Kumaravel Thiagarajan wrote:
> >>> build errors listed below and reported for the builds of riscv,
> >>> s390, csky, alpha and loongarch allmodconfig are fixed in this patch.
> >>>
> >>> drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:311:12: error:
> >> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_resume' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >>> 311 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
> >>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>> drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/mchp_pci1xxxx_gpio.c:295:12: error:
> >> 'pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend' defined but not used
> >> [-Werror=unused-function]
> >>> 295 | static int pci1xxxx_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>
> >>
> >> What about this description?:
> >>
> >> "Sudip reported unused function errors on riscv, s390, cksy, alpha,
> >> and loongarch (allmodconfig):
> >> <pci1xxxx_gpio_* errors>...
> >>
> >> Fix these errors by using DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS."
> > It looks good even though it does not include all the details.
> > But is not how much of detail good enough subjective?
> > I thought some might be looking for more information and chose this way.
> > Do you think I need to change this? Please let me know.
>
> Yes, with full error text as Sudip had reported.
Yes. I had included his name only in the Reported-by: tag and missed it in the commit
description. I have fixed it in v2.
Thank You.
Regards,
Kumaravel