@@ -240,32 +240,32 @@ static struct lock_class_key pcs_request_class;
* does not help in this case.
*/
-static unsigned __maybe_unused pcs_readb(void __iomem *reg)
+static unsigned int pcs_readb(void __iomem *reg)
{
return readb(reg);
}
-static unsigned __maybe_unused pcs_readw(void __iomem *reg)
+static unsigned int pcs_readw(void __iomem *reg)
{
return readw(reg);
}
-static unsigned __maybe_unused pcs_readl(void __iomem *reg)
+static unsigned int pcs_readl(void __iomem *reg)
{
return readl(reg);
}
-static void __maybe_unused pcs_writeb(unsigned val, void __iomem *reg)
+static void pcs_writeb(unsigned int val, void __iomem *reg)
{
writeb(val, reg);
}
-static void __maybe_unused pcs_writew(unsigned val, void __iomem *reg)
+static void pcs_writew(unsigned int val, void __iomem *reg)
{
writew(val, reg);
}
-static void __maybe_unused pcs_writel(unsigned val, void __iomem *reg)
+static void pcs_writel(unsigned int val, void __iomem *reg)
{
writel(val, reg);
}
These are always used in pcs_probe(). While I was here, I also changed 'unsigned' in the same line to 'unsigned int' to address the checkpatch warnings: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of 'unsigned' Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> --- drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)