From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:34:44 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] common/spl: Mark arguments as unused
In-Reply-To: <508D6586.2040708@gmail.com> (from vikram186@gmail.com on Sun
	Oct 28 12:04:06 2012)
References: <1351098693.17170.0@snotra> <508D6586.2040708@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1351528484.31866.0@snotra>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 10/28/2012 12:04:06 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 10:41 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 11:14:34 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2012 7:22 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> I'd rather call this a proper way of coding, than calling it ugly.  
>>> But
>>> perceptions differ.
>> 
>> If you want to push for a change to the official coding style, and
>> changing the warning options to go with it, go ahead (I'll argue  
>> against
>> it of course), but until and unless you succeed at that, this isn't  
>> the
>> way U-Boot code is written. I don't see a single instance of
>> __maybe_unused in an argument list, or a single instance of
>> __always_unused anywhere in U-Boot other than its definition.
>> Unnecessary clutter is harmful to readability.
> 
> It's not worth arguing over a single line of code that isn't going to  
> cause any significant change. That would save us both some time.

So you're withdrawing the patch?

I'm more concerned about the precedent it sets than the one specific  
line.

-Scott