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

[Vikram Narayanan]

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<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.

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