Fix sparse warnings:
drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c:81:26: warning: symbol 'dma40_memcpy_conf_phy' was not declared. Should it be static?
drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c:95:26: warning: symbol 'dma40_memcpy_conf_log' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <[email protected]>
---
Hi Linus,
just a quick sparse error fixup on the dma driver.
Thanks,
Fabio
drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c b/drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c
index fa4f9a3..8f72085 100644
--- a/drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c
+++ b/drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static int dma40_memcpy_channels[] = {
};
/* Default configuration for physcial memcpy */
-struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_phy = {
+static struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_phy = {
.mode = STEDMA40_MODE_PHYSICAL,
.dir = DMA_MEM_TO_MEM,
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_phy = {
};
/* Default configuration for logical memcpy */
-struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_log = {
+static struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_log = {
.mode = STEDMA40_MODE_LOGICAL,
.dir = DMA_MEM_TO_MEM,
--
1.8.2
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> Fix sparse warnings:
>
> drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c:81:26: warning: symbol 'dma40_memcpy_conf_phy' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c:95:26: warning: symbol 'dma40_memcpy_conf_log' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Vinod Koul <[email protected]>
I guess this would be dependent on recent ste_dma40 patches so best way is
Linus's tree, right?
--
~Vinod
> ---
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> just a quick sparse error fixup on the dma driver.
>
> Thanks,
> Fabio
>
> drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c b/drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c
> index fa4f9a3..8f72085 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c
> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static int dma40_memcpy_channels[] = {
> };
>
> /* Default configuration for physcial memcpy */
> -struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_phy = {
> +static struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_phy = {
> .mode = STEDMA40_MODE_PHYSICAL,
> .dir = DMA_MEM_TO_MEM,
>
> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_phy = {
> };
>
> /* Default configuration for logical memcpy */
> -struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_log = {
> +static struct stedma40_chan_cfg dma40_memcpy_conf_log = {
> .mode = STEDMA40_MODE_LOGICAL,
> .dir = DMA_MEM_TO_MEM,
>
> --
> 1.8.2
>
--
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 08:40:00AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> > Fix sparse warnings:
> >
> > drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c:81:26: warning: symbol 'dma40_memcpy_conf_phy' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c:95:26: warning: symbol 'dma40_memcpy_conf_log' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Vinod Koul <[email protected]>
>
> I guess this would be dependent on recent ste_dma40 patches so best way is
> Linus's tree, right?
Yes, but I'm not sure Linus is going to send a third pull request for
dma40 so maybe I should just resend my last two dma40 patches for
arm-soc directly.
Thanks for the Ack.
Fabio
--
Fabio Baltieri
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Fabio Baltieri
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 08:40:00AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Fabio Baltieri wrote:
>> > Fix sparse warnings:
>> >
>> > drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c:81:26: warning: symbol 'dma40_memcpy_conf_phy' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> > drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c:95:26: warning: symbol 'dma40_memcpy_conf_log' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Vinod Koul <[email protected]>
>>
>> I guess this would be dependent on recent ste_dma40 patches so best way is
>> Linus's tree, right?
>
> Yes, but I'm not sure Linus is going to send a third pull request for
> dma40 so maybe I should just resend my last two dma40 patches for
> arm-soc directly.
I've stacked it in my tree, I didn't plan to send another pull
request but I guess I have to, or I'll send it as fixes, so I'm
taking care of this.
Yours,
Linus Walleij