On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 07:55:25AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:01:55AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s): > > > > > > drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c: In function ‘mip4_report_touch’: > > > drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c:474:5: warning: variable ‘size’ > > > set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] > > > drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c:472:5: warning: variable > > > ‘pressure_stage’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] > > > drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c:469:7: warning: variable ‘palm’ > > > set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] > > > drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c:468:7: warning: variable ‘hover’ > > > set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] > > > > > > Cc: Sangwon Jee <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Henrik Rydberg <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c | 11 ----------- > > > 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c > > > b/drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c > > > index f67efdd040b24..9c98759098c7a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c > > > +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/melfas_mip4.c > > > @@ -465,13 +465,9 @@ static void mip4_report_keys(struct mip4_ts *ts, u8 > > > *packet) > > > static void mip4_report_touch(struct mip4_ts *ts, u8 *packet) > > > { > > > int id; > > > - bool hover; > > > - bool palm; > > > bool state; > > > u16 x, y; > > > - u8 pressure_stage = 0; > > > u8 pressure; > > > - u8 size; > > > u8 touch_major; > > > u8 touch_minor; > > > > > > @@ -480,14 +476,11 @@ static void mip4_report_touch(struct mip4_ts *ts, > > > u8 *packet) > > > case 1: > > > /* Touch only */ > > > state = packet[0] & BIT(7); > > > - hover = packet[0] & BIT(5); > > > - palm = packet[0] & BIT(4); > > > > No really happy that we'd be losing information about protocol. Is there > > a better way to suppress the warning while keeping this info? > > Yes. We can either convert the information to comments, or mark the > variables as __always_unused.
If __always unused suppresses this warning that would be my preference. Thanks! -- Dmitry
