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<vikram...@gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Roese<s...@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.
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.
~Vikram
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
