[PATCH 4/6] at91/picotux200: fix warning: 'picotux200_mmc_data' defined but not used
Uwe Kleine-König
u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de
Sat Nov 20 16:44:12 EST 2010
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:08:51AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-at91/board-picotux200.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-picotux200.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-picotux200.c
> index ac1a3b5..7259e7b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-picotux200.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-picotux200.c
> @@ -79,12 +79,14 @@ static struct at91_usbh_data __initdata picotux200_usbh_data = {
> // .pullup_pin = AT91_PIN_PD5,
> // };
>
> +#ifndef CONFIG_MTD_AT91_DATAFLASH_CARD
> static struct at91_mmc_data __initdata picotux200_mmc_data = {
> .det_pin = AT91_PIN_PB27,
> .slot_b = 0,
> .wire4 = 1,
> .wp_pin = AT91_PIN_PA17,
> };
> +#endif
I'd prefer __maybe_unused. Then introducing bugs is catched more easily
because the code is always compiled.
>
> // static struct spi_board_info picotux200_spi_devices[] = {
> // { /* DataFlash chip */
And it seems this file could get some care by removing c99-style
comments ...
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list