From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vikram Narayanan Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:44:34 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] common/spl: Mark arguments as unused In-Reply-To: <1351043527.7132.15@snotra> References: <50866BEC.1030601@gmail.com> <508670ED.7010502@denx.de> <20121023154549.GA6206@bill-the-cat> <5086D09F.7040403@gmail.com> <1351043527.7132.15@snotra> Message-ID: <50876B2A.60704@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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 >>>>> Cc: Stefan Roese >>>>> --- >>>>> 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