[PATCH 4/6] at91/picotux200: fix warning: 'picotux200_mmc_data' defined but not used

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 22:44 Sat 20 Nov     , Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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.
I prefer to remove the struct if not needed as we do an all at91
> 
> >  
> >  // static struct spi_board_info picotux200_spi_devices[] = {
> >  // 	{	/* DataFlash chip */
> And it seems this file could get some care by removing c99-style
> comments ...
I've other patch to finish the cleanup

Best Regards,
J.