The GCC complains the following warning.
sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c:365:13: warning: symbol 'rt5677_spi_pcm_page' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <[email protected]>
---
sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c b/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c
index 36c02d2..b412371 100644
--- a/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c
+++ b/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c
@@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ static void rt5677_spi_copy_work(struct work_struct *work)
mutex_unlock(&rt5677_dsp->dma_lock);
}
-struct page *rt5677_spi_pcm_page(
+static struct page *rt5677_spi_pcm_page(
struct snd_soc_component *component,
struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
unsigned long offset)
--
1.7.12.4
ping.
On 2019/10/24 20:15, zhong jiang wrote:
> The GCC complains the following warning.
>
> sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c:365:13: warning: symbol 'rt5677_spi_pcm_page' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <[email protected]>
> ---
> sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c b/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c
> index 36c02d2..b412371 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c
> @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ static void rt5677_spi_copy_work(struct work_struct *work)
> mutex_unlock(&rt5677_dsp->dma_lock);
> }
>
> -struct page *rt5677_spi_pcm_page(
> +static struct page *rt5677_spi_pcm_page(
> struct snd_soc_component *component,
> struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> unsigned long offset)
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:08:32AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
> ping.
> On 2019/10/24 20:15, zhong jiang wrote:
Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
for review. People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so
on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
please allow at least a couple of weeks for review. If there have been
review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.
Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
for the subsystem are normally handled.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:01:48PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
> On 2019/10/29 20:24, Mark Brown wrote:
> I send the patch, but alway receive the following responses.
> This message is from the Forcepoint email protection system, Forcepoint Email Security at host huawei.com.
> The attached email could not be delivered to one or more recipients.
> For assistance, please contact your email system administrator and include the following problem report:
> <[email protected]>: host rtits1.realtek.com[211.75.126.71] said: 553 5.7.1
> <[email protected]>: host rtits1.realtek.com[211.75.126.71] said: 553
> Do the mails fails to send the receivers ? The mails is empty content. I have no ideas about that.
Bard left Realtek and I think Oder did too though I'm not 100% sure
which is why mail to them is bouncing - but looking back I didn't get
your original patch either though so you had some problem it seems (also
you've not sent it to alsa-devel). As I said in the mail you're
replying to probably best to resend.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 08:15:19PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
> The GCC complains the following warning.
>
> sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c:365:13: warning: symbol 'rt5677_spi_pcm_page' was not declared. Should it be static?
It looks like this has been fixed already in the latest code.
On 2019/10/31 21:20, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 08:15:19PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>> The GCC complains the following warning.
>>
>> sound/soc/codecs/rt5677-spi.c:365:13: warning: symbol 'rt5677_spi_pcm_page' was not declared. Should it be static?
> It looks like this has been fixed already in the latest code.
Yes, I has noticed that.
Thanks,
zhong jiang