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

[Vikram Narayanan <vikram186@gmail.com>]

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.

> 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.

~Vikram