From: Mark Brown <hidden> Date: 2010-09-08 10:25:39
Avoids build warnings due to the undeclared non-statics.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <redacted>
---
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/dev-spi.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
From: Kukjin Kim <hidden> Date: 2010-09-08 11:52:48
Mark Brown wrote:
The irqs.h usage here got missed in the Samsung platform reorganisation.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <redacted>
Acked-by: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Maybe Jassi wants to use 'jassi.brar at samsung.com' e-mail...but I'm not sure
;-)
Anyway, this is ok to me...and how about mach-s5pc100/dev-spi.c?
And I think, this should be gone to upstream via Ben's tree...
From: Kukjin Kim <hidden> Date: 2010-09-08 12:21:02
Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 08:52:48PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
quoted
Anyway, this is ok to me...and how about mach-s5pc100/dev-spi.c?
I've not looked at S5PC100 since I don't have any boards with that.
Ok..I will sort out others.
quoted
And I think, this should be gone to upstream via Ben's tree...
Yup, though the MAINTAINERS pattern matches you both. I'm resending due
to lack of any response from Ben.
mm...if he busy, I will/can do it :-)
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim [off-list ref], Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
From: Mark Brown <hidden> Date: 2010-09-08 12:46:05
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 09:39:21PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
quoted
Avoids build warnings due to the undeclared non-statics.
Could you please let me know what's the build warning?
It'll have been something along the lines of:
's3c64xx_device_iis0' not declared; should it be static?
for each device. Possibly generated by sparse rather than GCC - I
always build with sparse as well.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Kukjin Kim [off-list ref] wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
quoted
The irqs.h usage here got missed in the Samsung platform reorganisation.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <redacted>
Acked-by: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <redacted>
Maybe Jassi wants to use 'jassi.brar at samsung.com' e-mail...but I'm not sure
;-)
Yes, that would be better.
I have to use personal id because I can't always reply from the official one.
Otherwise, I'd prefer my work to be tagged with jassi.brar at samsung.com
Thanks.
From: Mark Brown <hidden> Date: 2010-09-08 16:01:12
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:17:51PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
I have to use personal id because I can't always reply from the official one.
Otherwise, I'd prefer my work to be tagged with jassi.brar at samsung.com
OK, I'll amend it. I just cut'n'pasted from your ack mail IIRC.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Mark Brown
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:17:51PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
quoted
I have to use personal id because I can't always reply from the official one.
Otherwise, I'd prefer my work to be tagged with jassi.brar at samsung.com
OK, I'll amend it. ?I just cut'n'pasted from your ack mail IIRC.
From: Kukjin Kim <hidden> Date: 2010-09-09 11:11:33
Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:17:51PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
quoted
I have to use personal id because I can't always reply from the official
one.
quoted
Otherwise, I'd prefer my work to be tagged with jassi.brar at samsung.com
OK, I'll amend it. I just cut'n'pasted from your ack mail IIRC.
May I amend it when apply it into my tree?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim [off-list ref], Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
From: Kukjin Kim <hidden> Date: 2010-09-09 11:18:10
Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 09:39:21PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
quoted
Mark Brown wrote:
quoted
quoted
Avoids build warnings due to the undeclared non-statics.
quoted
Could you please let me know what's the build warning?
It'll have been something along the lines of:
's3c64xx_device_iis0' not declared; should it be static?
for each device. Possibly generated by sparse rather than GCC - I
always build with sparse as well.
Hi Mark,
Sorry...I can't understand your comment.
You mean the build warning is 's3c64xx_device_iis0' is not declared..right?
Hmm...the 's3c64xx_device_iis0' used only in a mach-s3c64xx/mach-smartq.c
file.
And defined it as extern struct in a plat-samsung/include/plat/devs.h file.
...So...why need to modify mach-s3c64xx/dev-spi.c for it?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim [off-list ref], Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
From: Mark Brown <hidden> Date: 2010-09-09 11:33:09
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 08:18:10PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
quoted
It'll have been something along the lines of:
quoted
's3c64xx_device_iis0' not declared; should it be static?
quoted
for each device. Possibly generated by sparse rather than GCC - I
always build with sparse as well.
You mean the build warning is 's3c64xx_device_iis0' is not declared..right?
Yes, or words to that effect.
Hmm...the 's3c64xx_device_iis0' used only in a mach-s3c64xx/mach-smartq.c
file.
And defined it as extern struct in a plat-samsung/include/plat/devs.h file.
...So...why need to modify mach-s3c64xx/dev-spi.c for it?
The complaint is that the symbol has been defined in the C file with
global scope but there's no declaration for it. This means that either
the symbol is not supposed to be global scope and should be static
instead (which isn't the case here, machines are supposed to be able to
reference it) or that there is nothing checking that the declaration
that other files use to talk about the symbol matches the defintion. If
the users are using a different declaration then the memory layout and
alignment may not be correct for them, causing errors at runtime.
In other words the file has:
struct platform_device s3c64xx_device_iis0 = {
...
};
and the compiler/sparse is expecting to see:
struct platform_device s3c64xx_device_iis0;
before that, which comes from devs.h.
From: Mark Brown <hidden> Date: 2010-09-09 11:34:29
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 08:11:33PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
quoted
OK, I'll amend it. I just cut'n'pasted from your ack mail IIRC.
May I amend it when apply it into my tree?
That would seem sensible. I'm talking about the copy I keep locally in
a queue to try to make sure things don't get dropped on the floor in
case maintainers are unresponsive.