[PATCH v3 1/4] debug_uart: Replace debug functions with dummies if CONFIG_DEBUG_UART is not set

[Kever Yang]

Hi Tom,

     This is regression of "#ifdef CONFIG", is it possible for us to go 
back to use "#ifdef CONFIG" in this case?

Or do you have any other suggestion for this issue?

On 2024/9/30 16:55, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Kever,
>
> On 9/29/24 3:53 AM, Kever Yang wrote:
>> Hi Lukasz,
>>
>>      I think this will make the error happen like this:
>>
>> +common/console.c: In function 'puts':
>> +common/console.c:746:29: error: unused variable 'ch' 
>> [-Werror=unused- variable]
>> +  746 |                         int ch = *s++;
>> +      |                             ^~
>> +cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>> +make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:257: common/console.o] Error 1
>>
>>
>> The main reason is that below patch removes "#ifdef":
>>
>> c04f856822a console: remove #ifdef CONFIG when it is possible
>>
>
> Can you please always share the link to the pipelines that fail so 
> people have an idea on how to reproduce it locally?
>
> Here I assume it is: 
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-rockchip/-/pipelines/22455
>
> A simple way is to apply the patches, build the pine64-lts for example 
> and then you'll see warnings (which aren't failing builds locally I 
> believe but in CI, yes).
>
> I think we can fool the compiler with the following:
>
> diff --git a/include/debug_uart.h b/include/debug_uart.h
> index dc0f1aa4c98..b19e44d6d0f 100644
> --- a/include/debug_uart.h
> +++ b/include/debug_uart.h
> @@ -204,12 +204,12 @@ void printdec(unsigned int value);
>  #define DEBUG_UART_FUNCS \
>      #warning "DEBUG_UART not defined!"
>
> -#define printch(ch) do{}while(0);
> -#define printascii(str) do{}while(0);
> -#define printhex2(value) do{}while(0);
> -#define printhex4(value) do{}while(0);
> -#define printhex8(value) do{}while(0);
> -#define printdec(value) do{}while(0);
> +#define printch(ch) do{ (void)(ch); }while(0);
> +#define printascii(str) do{ (void)(str); }while(0);
> +#define printhex2(value) do{ (void)(value); }while(0);
> +#define printhex4(value) do{ (void)(value); }while(0);
> +#define printhex8(value) do{ (void)(value); }while(0);
> +#define printdec(value) do{ (void)(value); }while(0);
>
>  #endif
>
> Does this make sense?

Hi Quentin,

     Thanks for your information about pipeline and suggestion for code 
change, but this workaround does not looks good :(


Thanks,

- Kever

>
> Cheers,
> Quentin