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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] usb: typec: tcpm: remove unused static variable
 'tcpm_altmode_ops'
To:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20210407091540.2815-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
 <7e2797f7-0ba7-0362-ae34-a1d4fb265cd7@redhat.com>
 <YG7MG2yZbRlSJg9E@kuha.fi.intel.com>
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <a6465113-62b0-171b-9dad-55cbd1464607@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:36:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YG7MG2yZbRlSJg9E@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 4/8/21 11:25 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:10:38AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 4/7/21 11:15 AM, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning:
>>>
>>> drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c:2107:39: warning: ‘tcpm_altmode_ops’ defined but not used [-Wunused-const-variable=]
>>>
>>> The reference to the variable 'tcpm_altmode_ops' is deleted by the
>>> commit a079973f462a ("usb: typec: tcpm: Remove tcpc_config configuration
>>> mechanism").
>>>
>>> By the way, the static functions referenced only by the variable
>>> 'tcpm_altmode_ops' are deleted accordingly.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>>
>> I have a patch pending:
>>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg197684.html
>>
>> Which actually uses this. I really need to (and plan to) brush the dust of
>> this one soon and submit a new version.
>>
>> As such I would prefer for these ops to not get removed. But I guess I
>> can always include a patch in my series reverting the removal...
> 
> Well, can we then just leave the ops there? If we're going to
> re-introduce them back soon in any case, then why drop them in the
> first place.

Yes I'm in favor of just leaving them in place too, sorry if that was
not clear.

Regards,

Hans