2005-03-15 17:01:47

by Tom Rini

Subject: [PATCH] ppc32: Fix a warning in planb video driver

[ aside: This has been sitting in the linuxppc-2.5 bk tree for I don't
know how long. And the driver is still horribly broken. ]

The following patch moves overlay_is_active to before its first use. It
was originally written when gcc wouldn't complain, but now does, about
not having the definition before usage.

drivers/media/video/planb.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--- linux-2.6.11/drivers/media/video/planb.c 2005-03-02 00:38:19.000000000 -0700
+++ linuxppc-2.6.11/drivers/media/video/planb.c 2005-03-15 08:04:16.000000000 -0700
@@ -421,6 +421,16 @@
/* overlay support functions */
/*****************************/

+static inline int overlay_is_active(struct planb *pb)
+{
+ unsigned int size = pb->tab_size * sizeof(struct dbdma_cmd);
+ unsigned int caddr = (unsigned)in_le32(&pb->planb_base->ch1.cmdptr);
+
+ return (in_le32(&pb->overlay_last1->cmd_dep) == pb->ch1_cmd_phys)
+ && (caddr < (pb->ch1_cmd_phys + size))
+ && (caddr >= (unsigned)pb->ch1_cmd_phys);
+}
+
static void overlay_start(struct planb *pb)
{

@@ -852,16 +862,6 @@

#define PLANB_PALETTE_MAX 15

-static inline int overlay_is_active(struct planb *pb)
-{
- unsigned int size = pb->tab_size * sizeof(struct dbdma_cmd);
- unsigned int caddr = (unsigned)in_le32(&pb->planb_base->ch1.cmdptr);
-
- return (in_le32(&pb->overlay_last1->cmd_dep) == pb->ch1_cmd_phys)
- && (caddr < (pb->ch1_cmd_phys + size))
- && (caddr >= (unsigned)pb->ch1_cmd_phys);
-}
-
static int vgrab(struct planb *pb, struct video_mmap *mp)
{
unsigned int fr = mp->frame;

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

2005-03-15 17:35:37

by Tom Rini

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc32: Fix a warning in planb video driver

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:01:12AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> [ aside: This has been sitting in the linuxppc-2.5 bk tree for I don't
> know how long. And the driver is still horribly broken. ]
>
> The following patch moves overlay_is_active to before its first use. It
> was originally written when gcc wouldn't complain, but now does, about
> not having the definition before usage.

Oops,
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <[email protected]>

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/