[PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()

[PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()

[Matthias Kaehlcke]

The function was added by commit 0a8b83530b6f ("intel_pmc_ipc: Add Intel
Apollo Lake PMC IPC driver") in 2015 and hasn't been used since then.
Removing it fixes the following warning when building with clang:

    drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c:189:18: error: unused function
        'ipc_data_readb' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]

Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
---
 drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
index e4d4dfe3e1d1..aa2fd58b75c4 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
@@ -186,11 +186,6 @@ static inline void ipc_data_writel(u32 data, u32 offset)
 	writel(data, ipcdev.ipc_base + IPC_WRITE_BUFFER + offset);
 }
 
-static inline u8 ipc_data_readb(u32 offset)
-{
-	return readb(ipcdev.ipc_base + IPC_READ_BUFFER + offset);
-}
-
 static inline u32 ipc_data_readl(u32 offset)
 {
 	return readl(ipcdev.ipc_base + IPC_READ_BUFFER + offset);
-- 
2.13.0.219.gdb65acc882-goog

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()

[Alan Cox]

On Tue, 23 May 2017 13:55:39 -0700
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:

> The function was added by commit 0a8b83530b6f ("intel_pmc_ipc: Add Intel
> Apollo Lake PMC IPC driver") in 2015 and hasn't been used since then.
> Removing it fixes the following warning when building with clang:
> 
>     drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c:189:18: error: unused function
>         'ipc_data_readb' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]

It is however also part of the API and a consistent sensible function to
have present should it be needed. As it's static it's eliminated
correctly by gcc.

I'm all for eliminating unused functions but in this case I have to wonder

Alan

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2017 13:55:39 -0700
> Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> The function was added by commit 0a8b83530b6f ("intel_pmc_ipc: Add Intel
>> Apollo Lake PMC IPC driver") in 2015 and hasn't been used since then.
>> Removing it fixes the following warning when building with clang:
>>
>>     drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c:189:18: error: unused function
>>         'ipc_data_readb' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]
>
> It is however also part of the API and a consistent sensible function to
> have present should it be needed. As it's static it's eliminated
> correctly by gcc.
>
> I'm all for eliminating unused functions but in this case I have to wonder

If it's a useful function to have present, it seems like adding
"__maybe_unused" makes sense, as Matthias did in
<https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9732009/>.  Would that work for
you?

-Doug

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Delete unused function ipc_data_readb()

[Alan Cox]

On Wed, 24 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700
Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 May 2017 13:55:39 -0700
> > Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> The function was added by commit 0a8b83530b6f ("intel_pmc_ipc: Add Intel
> >> Apollo Lake PMC IPC driver") in 2015 and hasn't been used since then.
> >> Removing it fixes the following warning when building with clang:
> >>
> >>     drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c:189:18: error: unused function
> >>         'ipc_data_readb' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]  
> >
> > It is however also part of the API and a consistent sensible function to
> > have present should it be needed. As it's static it's eliminated
> > correctly by gcc.
> >
> > I'm all for eliminating unused functions but in this case I have to wonder  
> 
> If it's a useful function to have present, it seems like adding
> "__maybe_unused" makes sense, as Matthias did in
> <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9732009/>.  Would that work for
> you?
> 

Yep

Alan