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

[Scott Wood]

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 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?
> 
> 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.

-Scott