[U-Boot] [PATCH] common/spl: Mark arguments as unused
Scott Wood
scottwood at freescale.com
Wed Oct 24 03:52:07 CEST 2012
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 at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Stefan Roese<sr at 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
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list