The newly added rt5659 codec driver unconditionally defines an
ACPI device match table but then uses ACPI_PTR() to remove the
only reference to it, so we get a harmless build warning:
sound/soc/codecs/rt5659.c:4200:30: warning: 'rt5659_acpi_match' defined but not used [-Wunused-variable]
static struct acpi_device_id rt5659_acpi_match[] = {
This removes the ACPI_PTR() to avoid the warning.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
This is a harmless regression against v4.4, found on ARM randconfig builds
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Date: 2016-01-20 10:46:20
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:43:48AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The newly added rt5659 codec driver unconditionally defines an
ACPI device match table but then uses ACPI_PTR() to remove the
only reference to it, so we get a harmless build warning:
sound/soc/codecs/rt5659.c:4200:30: warning: 'rt5659_acpi_match' defined but not used [-Wunused-variable]
static struct acpi_device_id rt5659_acpi_match[] = {
On Wednesday 20 January 2016 10:45:55 Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:43:48AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
The newly added rt5659 codec driver unconditionally defines an
ACPI device match table but then uses ACPI_PTR() to remove the
only reference to it, so we get a harmless build warning:
quoted
sound/soc/codecs/rt5659.c:4200:30: warning: 'rt5659_acpi_match' defined but not used [-Wunused-variable]
static struct acpi_device_id rt5659_acpi_match[] = {
quoted
This removes the ACPI_PTR() to avoid the warning.
Why is this a better fix than conditionally defining the table?
I'm not overly fond of adding #ifdef if it can be avoided. In this case,
both approaches seemed reasonable (either add an #ifdef or waste a couple
of bytes), and I picked at random. I'll send you the alternative as well,
please apply whichever one you prefer.
Arnd