[PATCH] gpio: aspeed: fix compile testing warning
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: 2018-07-09 19:53:22
Also in:
linux-aspeed, linux-gpio, lkml
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Alexander Stein [off-list ref] wrote:
On Monday, July 9, 2018, 4:56:03 PM CEST Arnd Bergmann wrote:quoted
Gcc cannot always see that BUG_ON(1) is guaranteed to not return, so we get a warning message in some configurations: drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed.c: In function 'bank_reg': drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed.c:244:1: error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type] Using a plain BUG() is easier here and avoids the problem. Fixes: 44ddf559d579 ("gpio: aspeed: Rework register type accessors") Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> --- drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed.c index 1e00f4045f9d..2342e154029b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed.c@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *bank_reg(struct aspeed_gpio*gpio, case reg_cmdsrc1: return gpio->base + bank->cmdsrc_regs + GPIO_CMDSRC_1; } - BUG_ON(1); + BUG(); } #define GPIO_BANK(x) ((x) >> 5)Is the semantic of BUG() (and BUG_ON as well) to never return?
On most architectures and configurations yes, but not on some of the minor architectures if CONFIG_BUG is disabled.
If so, then just an idea: Is it possible to add some macro magic in BUG_ON(x) to fail compiling if x is compile-constant? Giving a hint the passed condition always fails, which indicates a problem, at least to me.
Not sure, that might not work well in cases where it's a compile-time constant in some configurations but variable in others.
From a short search I found this in drivers/gpu/vga/vgaarb.c L630-633:quoted
if (vgadev_find(pdev) != NULL) { BUG_ON(1); goto fail; }You can't fail with a BUG_ON(1) and try to do some error handling after that.
Right.
Traditionally when CONFIG_BUG was disabled, we would have continued
here, so that could have been intentional, but in any case a WARN_ON()
would have been more appropriate here.
Arnd