Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1648659 > unrolled thread

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

Started byMatthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
First post2017-05-23 23:00 +0200
Last post2017-05-24 17:50 +0200
Articles 3 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb() Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> - 2017-05-23 23:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function  ipc_data_readb() Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2017-05-24 15:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb() Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2017-05-24 17:50 +0200

#1648659 — [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()

FromMatthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Date2017-05-23 23:00 +0200
Subject[PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()
Message-ID<tKp4o-7w-55@gated-at.bofh.it>
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]

Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
---
 drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
index e4d4dfe3e1d1..aa2fd58b75c4 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
@@ -186,11 +186,6 @@ static inline void ipc_data_writel(u32 data, u32 offset)
 	writel(data, ipcdev.ipc_base + IPC_WRITE_BUFFER + offset);
 }
 
-static inline u8 ipc_data_readb(u32 offset)
-{
-	return readb(ipcdev.ipc_base + IPC_READ_BUFFER + offset);
-}
-
 static inline u32 ipc_data_readl(u32 offset)
 {
 	return readl(ipcdev.ipc_base + IPC_READ_BUFFER + offset);
-- 
2.13.0.219.gdb65acc882-goog

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1649638 — Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()

FromAlan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date2017-05-24 15:50 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()
Message-ID<tKEPN-2YG-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1648659
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

Alan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1649720

FromDoug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date2017-05-24 17:50 +0200
Message-ID<tKGHU-49Y-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1649638
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?

-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web