Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:25:43 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc:     Tobias Klauser <tklauser@distanz.ch>,
        Anurag Kumar Vulisha <anurag.kumar.vulisha@xilinx.com>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: zynqmp: Fix unused-function compiler warning
Message-ID: <20200701135543.GA2599@vkoul-mobl>
References: <20200701090438.21224-1-tklauser@distanz.ch>
 <20200701131902.GC27013@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <20200701133643.GZ2599@vkoul-mobl>
 <20200701134443.GE27013@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200701134443.GE27013@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Laurent,

On 01-07-20, 16:44, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

> > How about marking it as __maybe_unused instead?
> 
> I don't mind either, I'll let Tobias decide, but his patch seems fine,
> is there a drawback in his approach ? If it's just a matter of personal
> preference, I'd rather not require a v2.

__maybe_unused is the preferred way to do as Documented in
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst and makes code look neater..

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod