| Message ID | 1465320786-10333-1-git-send-email-ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote: > Fix warnings about emev2_pinmux_info and r8a7779_pinmux_info > by using core.h instead of sh_pfc.h in these files. This gives > the declarations of the two structures and removes the following > warnings: > > drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-emev2.c:1695:30: warning: symbol 'emev2_pinmux_info' was not declared. Should it be static? > drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7779.c:3888:30: warning: symbol 'r8a7779_pinmux_info' was not declared. Should it be static? > > Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> Geert/Laurent: - take a look at this patch - shall I apply this directly? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Linus, Ben, On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote: > >> Fix warnings about emev2_pinmux_info and r8a7779_pinmux_info >> by using core.h instead of sh_pfc.h in these files. This gives >> the declarations of the two structures and removes the following >> warnings: >> >> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-emev2.c:1695:30: warning: symbol 'emev2_pinmux_info' was not declared. Should it be static? >> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7779.c:3888:30: warning: symbol 'r8a7779_pinmux_info' was not declared. Should it be static? >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> Ben: Thanks for your patch! > > Geert/Laurent: > > - take a look at this patch These are fixes for sparse warnings, and look fine to me. However, it seems "core.h" should be included by all the remaining drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-sh* files for ARCH=sh, too. At which point I start to question: why not merge core.h with sh_pfc.h? > - shall I apply this directly? i could take it through sh-pfc-for-v4.8. I expect more pfc stuff to follow soon anyway. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 09/06/16 09:08, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Linus, Ben, > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Fix warnings about emev2_pinmux_info and r8a7779_pinmux_info >>> by using core.h instead of sh_pfc.h in these files. This gives >>> the declarations of the two structures and removes the following >>> warnings: >>> >>> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-emev2.c:1695:30: warning: symbol 'emev2_pinmux_info' was not declared. Should it be static? >>> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7779.c:3888:30: warning: symbol 'r8a7779_pinmux_info' was not declared. Should it be static? >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> > > Ben: Thanks for your patch! > >> >> Geert/Laurent: >> >> - take a look at this patch > > These are fixes for sparse warnings, and look fine to me. > However, it seems "core.h" should be included by all the remaining > drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-sh* files for ARCH=sh, too. > At which point I start to question: why not merge core.h with sh_pfc.h? > >> - shall I apply this directly? > > i could take it through sh-pfc-for-v4.8. > I expect more pfc stuff to follow soon anyway. Up to you what you want to do, thought these items should be fixed.
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-emev2.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-emev2.c index 1cbbe04..f943854 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-emev2.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-emev2.c @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/kernel.h> -#include "sh_pfc.h" +#include "core.h" #define CPU_ALL_PORT(fn, pfx, sfx) \ PORT_10(0, fn, pfx, sfx), PORT_90(0, fn, pfx, sfx), \ diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7779.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7779.c index 5bef934..098d01e 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7779.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7779.c @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ #include <linux/kernel.h> -#include "sh_pfc.h" +#include "core.h" #define CPU_ALL_PORT(fn, sfx) \ PORT_GP_32(0, fn, sfx), \
Fix warnings about emev2_pinmux_info and r8a7779_pinmux_info by using core.h instead of sh_pfc.h in these files. This gives the declarations of the two structures and removes the following warnings: drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-emev2.c:1695:30: warning: symbol 'emev2_pinmux_info' was not declared. Should it be static? drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7779.c:3888:30: warning: symbol 'r8a7779_pinmux_info' was not declared. Should it be static? Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> --- Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Cc: Alessandro Rubini <rubini@unipv.it> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org --- drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-emev2.c | 2 +- drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7779.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)