From: Tirumala Marri Subject: RE: [PATCH] PPC4xx: ADMA separating SoC specific functions Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:30:31 -0700 Message-ID: <070fbd9a32bf18957bc2ecda9a476d7d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1285865736-32074-1-git-send-email-tmarri@apm.com> <20100930190814.52268D2B48C@gemini.denx.de> <20101002184957.GA17774@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Wolfgang Denk , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, yur@emcraft.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH , Dan Williams Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101002184957.GA17774@kroah.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org > > > > You definitely need to be able to resolve "used but not defined" and > > "defined but not used" warnings before tackling a driver conversion > > like this. In light of this comment I wonder if it would be > > appropriate to submit your original driver, that just duplicated > > routines from the ppc440spe driver, to the -staging tree. Then it > > would be available for someone familiar with driver conversions to > > take a shot at unifying. > > > > Greg, is this an appropriate use of -staging? > > Possibly, but I really don't like duplication if possible. What's > keeping this code from being fixed up now properly? [Marri] Hello Greg, I am working on restructuring ppc4xx/adma.c driver into Common code and SoC specific code. This way I can add support for similar DMA engines. In this process I had to declare some Of the functions non static so that I can suppress "defined but not used" and "used but not defined". Here is what series of patches I planned to work on. 1. First set patches to re-arrange the code. Functionally no change except Structured into different files. 2. Second set to rename the common functions which are shared between SoC dma-engines. 3. Add support of new DMA engine for different SoC. I am working on first patch set right now. Regards, Marri