On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 09:39:42AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 20:54 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > > 在 2020/11/7 上午12:39, Florian Fainelli 写道: > > > > It is good to remember that there are multiple readers of source > > > > files. There is the compiler which generates code from it, and there > > > > is the human trying to understand what is going on, what the hardware > > > > can do, how we could maybe extend the code in the future to make use > > > > of bits are currently don't, etc. > > > > > > > > The compiler has no use of these macros, at the moment. But i as a > > > > human do. It is valuable documentation, given that there is no open > > > > datasheet for this hardware. > > > > > > > > I would say these warnings are bogus, and the code should be left > > > > alone. > > > Agreed, these definitions are intended to document what the hardware > > > does. These warnings are getting too far. > > > > Thanks for all comments! I agree these info are much meaningful. > > Is there other way to tame the gcc warning? like put them into a .h file > > or covered by comments? > > Does _any_ version of gcc have this warning on by default? > > I still think my proposal of moving the warning from W=2 to W=3 > quite reasonable. > > Another possibility is to turn the warning off altogether.
Lets tern the question around first. How many real bugs have you found with this warning? Places where the #define should of been used, but was not? Then we can get an idea of the value of this warning. My guess would be, its value is ~ 0 for the kernel. If so, we should just turn it off. Andrew