On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:16:00 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 at 06:43, Vincent Mailhol [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu. 19 Jun. 2025 at 10:38, Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:  

quoted

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:20:00 +0200 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:  

quoted

+static inline unsigned int rcar_canfd_f_cfdcrc(struct rcar_canfd_global *gpriv,
+                                            unsigned int ch)
+{
+     return gpriv->info->regs->coffset + 0x10 + 0x20 * ch;
+}  

clang is no longer fooled by static inline, it identifies that 4 out of  

Oh well, that explains why someone pointed to a CI log showing more
unused functions in a different driver.  I hope it only does that
for unused functions in .c files, not in header files?

Yes, AFAIU it's clever enough to distinguish what came in from 
the headers.

quoted

quoted

these functions are never called. I think one ends up getting used in
patch 10 (just looking at warning counts), but the other 3 remain dead
code. Geert, do you have a strong attachment to having all helpers
defined or can we trim this, please?  

I would like to keep them (or at least the information), as it serves
as register documentation, just like the macros they replaced....

Okay, we'll pull, but we really should try to keep the tree free of W=1
warnings. The CI can deal with existing warnings but they will annoy
humans doing development. Maybe there is a way to disable the warning
selectively for rcar if you find it unhelpful? And then we'll see if
some well meaning code janitor sends a patch to delete them anyway ;)