Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()

From	Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()
Date	2017-05-25 15:30 +0200
Message-ID	<tL0ZZ-iP-25@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tKp4o-7w-55@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKEPN-2YG-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKGHU-49Y-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	Intel Corporation

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 24 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700
Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 May 2017 13:55:39 -0700
> > Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> The function was added by commit 0a8b83530b6f ("intel_pmc_ipc: Add Intel
> >> Apollo Lake PMC IPC driver") in 2015 and hasn't been used since then.
> >> Removing it fixes the following warning when building with clang:
> >>
> >>     drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c:189:18: error: unused function
> >>         'ipc_data_readb' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]  
> >
> > It is however also part of the API and a consistent sensible function to
> > have present should it be needed. As it's static it's eliminated
> > correctly by gcc.
> >
> > I'm all for eliminating unused functions but in this case I have to wonder  
> 
> If it's a useful function to have present, it seems like adding
> "__maybe_unused" makes sense, as Matthias did in
> <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9732009/>.  Would that work for
> you?
> 

Yep

Alan

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function  ipc_data_readb() Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2017-05-25 15:30 +0200

csiph-web