[U-Boot] [PATCH] common/spl: Mark arguments as unused

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On 10/23/2012 12:15:11 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 9:15 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:53PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2012 12:05 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote:
>>>> As dummy{1,2} are not used anywhere, mark it with __maybe_unused
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vikram Narayanan<vikram186@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Stefan Roese<sr@denx.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>   common/spl/spl.c |    2 +-
>>>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c
>>>> index 0d829c0..62fd3bd 100644
>>>> --- a/common/spl/spl.c
>>>> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c
>>>> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void spl_ram_load_image(void)
>>>>   }
>>>>   #endif
>>>> 
>>>> -void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2)
>>>> +void board_init_r(__maybe_unused gd_t *dummy1, __maybe_unused  
>>>> ulong dummy2)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	u32 boot_device;
>>>>   	debug(">>spl:board_init_r()\n");
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps even __always_unused instead of __maybe_unused as these
>>> variables are never used?
>> 
>> Also, what does this give us?  Fixing a sparse warning?
> 
> Not a sparse warning. I noticed this while looking at the code.

If there's no warning, why do we need to ugly up the code with  
__maybe_unused?

Unused arguments are quite common, as a result of implementing a common  
interface where this implementation doesn't need all the information  
that the interface provides.  It should not cause a warning and should  
not require annotation.

-Scott