From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vikram Narayanan Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:34:06 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] common/spl: Mark arguments as unused In-Reply-To: <1351098693.17170.0@snotra> References: <1351098693.17170.0@snotra> Message-ID: <508D6586.2040708@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 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 >>>>>>> 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. > > 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. ~Vikram