Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] usb: dwc3: exynos: Switch from CONFIG_PM_SLEEP guards to pm_sleep_ptr()

From: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@gmail.com>
To: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
	 Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
	Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
	 "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
	 "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	 "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] usb: dwc3: exynos: Switch from CONFIG_PM_SLEEP guards to pm_sleep_ptr()
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:02:36 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANAwSgQDGUzYO8+wAFonCo4zZZ5s94uDiHi+jLGK4EtULZaDXw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240411222145.rkjz3cfzudjfnkdt@synopsys.com>

Hi Thinh,

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 at 03:52, Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, Anand Moon wrote:
> > Hi Thinh,
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 at 04:56, Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024, Anand Moon wrote:
> > > > Hi Thinh,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 at 07:24, Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024, Anand Moon wrote:
> > > > > > Use the new PM macros for the suspend and resume functions to be
> > > > > > automatically dropped by the compiler when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP are disabled,
> > > > > > without having to use #ifdef guards. If CONFIG_PM_SLEEP unused,
> > > > > > they will simply be discarded by the compiler.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@gmail.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > v2: add __maybe_unused to suspend/resume functions in case CONFIG_PM is
> > > > > >    disabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > The compiler discards the code, yet we still need __maybe_unused?
> > > > >
> > > > Earlier version had not added this since but I removed the
> > > > guard.CONFIG_PM_SLEEP.
> > > > added __maybe_unused just to safeguard the function.
> > > >
> > > > I have tried to build with config by disabling CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > > but could get the warning compilation by adding flag W=1
> > > > -Werror=unused-function.
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But since these CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP cannot be disabled,
> > > > I am not getting any warning related to these functions.
> > > >
> > > > Do you want me to remove __maybe_unused ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The warning was there as expected. You should to use it along with
> > > DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(). Let me know if you still see the same
> > > warning.
> > >
> >
> > But the warnings are related to the following macros
> >
> > #define PTR_IF(cond, ptr) ((cond) ? (ptr) : NULL)
> >
> > #define pm_ptr(_ptr) PTR_IF(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM), (_ptr))
> > #define pm_sleep_ptr(_ptr) PTR_IF(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP), (_ptr))
> >
> > So if we can disable CONFIG_PM and CONFIG_PM_SLEEP options
> > the relevant function with the above macro will be set to NULL.
> > in this case, the compiler will discard the function in SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS
> >
>
> There are differences if you use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS vs the new
> macro. It's noted in this commit:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=1a3c7bb088266fa2db017be299f91f1c1894c857
>
> Please try it out.

Thank you very much for this input

I will drop the __maybe_unused from my patch series.
and switch to use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS macro
for suspend resume functions

>
> Thanks,
> Thinh

Thanks
-Anand

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel