The uv_to_vsel, vsel_to_uv functions don't need to be exposed to the
world as they are used as function pointers. make them static.
Fixes sparse warnings:
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_twl.c:63:15: warning: symbol 'twl4030_vsel_to_uv' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_twl.c:68:4: warning: symbol 'twl4030_uv_to_vsel' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_twl.c:73:15: warning: symbol 'twl6030_vsel_to_uv' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_twl.c:105:4: warning: symbol 'twl6030_uv_to_vsel' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_twl.c | 8 ++++----
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
twl_init functions are declared in pm.h and used in pm.c
pm.h header defining the protos need to be included to
ensure that omap_twl.c has consistent function definition.
This fixes sparse warning:
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_twl.c:237:12: warning: symbol 'omap4_twl_init' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_twl.c:256:12: warning: symbol 'omap3_twl_init' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_twl.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <hidden> Date: 2011-01-03 22:36:56
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 12:58:28PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
Source:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tmlind/linux-omap-2.6.git
branch: omap-for-linus
Doing a rm arch/arm/mach-omap2/*.o;make C=1 arch/arm/mach-omap2/
resulted in the following sparse warnings:
http://pastebin.mozilla.org/907954
FYI, you may like to try:
make C=2 arch/arm/mach-omap2/
instead of the two-step process:
| Do a kernel make with "make C=1" to run sparse on all the C files that get
| recompiled, or use "make C=2" to run sparse on the files whether they need to
| be recompiled or not. The latter is a fast way to check the whole tree if you
| have already built it.
Russell King - ARM Linux had written, on 01/03/2011 04:36 PM, the following:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 12:58:28PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
quoted
Source:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tmlind/linux-omap-2.6.git
branch: omap-for-linus
Doing a rm arch/arm/mach-omap2/*.o;make C=1 arch/arm/mach-omap2/
resulted in the following sparse warnings:
http://pastebin.mozilla.org/907954
FYI, you may like to try:
make C=2 arch/arm/mach-omap2/
instead of the two-step process:
| Do a kernel make with "make C=1" to run sparse on all the C files that get
| recompiled, or use "make C=2" to run sparse on the files whether they need to
| be recompiled or not. The latter is a fast way to check the whole tree if you
| have already built it.
Gee thanks. /me should update my old bash aliases :D
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Nishanth Menon had written, on 01/03/2011 04:39 PM, the following:
Russell King - ARM Linux had written, on 01/03/2011 04:36 PM, the
following:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 12:58:28PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
quoted
Source:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tmlind/linux-omap-2.6.git
branch: omap-for-linus
Doing a rm arch/arm/mach-omap2/*.o;make C=1 arch/arm/mach-omap2/
resulted in the following sparse warnings:
http://pastebin.mozilla.org/907954
FYI, you may like to try:
make C=2 arch/arm/mach-omap2/
instead of the two-step process:
| Do a kernel make with "make C=1" to run sparse on all the C files
that get
| recompiled, or use "make C=2" to run sparse on the files whether
they need to
| be recompiled or not. The latter is a fast way to check the whole
tree if you
| have already built it.
Gee thanks. /me should update my old bash aliases :D
hmm.. minor nit (with codesourcery 2010.09-50 - 4.5.1):
rm arch/arm/mach-omap2/*.o;make C=1 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr;make C=2
arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr1;diff Kerr Kerr1
[..]
1,4d0
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c: In function 'omap_mux_get_by_name':
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c:163:17: warning: 'found_mode' may be used
uninitialized in this function
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c: In function 'omap2_clksel_set_parent':
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c:100:35: warning: 'max_clkr' may be
used uninitialized in this function
Kinda interesting to note that C=2 does'nt list all potential gcc
warnings :( if one wanted a collated list of all warnings, rm .../*.o
helps I guess.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <hidden> Date: 2011-01-05 00:25:49
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:37:23PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
hmm.. minor nit (with codesourcery 2010.09-50 - 4.5.1):
rm arch/arm/mach-omap2/*.o;make C=1 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr;make C=2
arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr1;diff Kerr Kerr1
[..]
1,4d0
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c: In function 'omap_mux_get_by_name':
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c:163:17: warning: 'found_mode' may be used
uninitialized in this function
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c: In function 'omap2_clksel_set_parent':
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c:100:35: warning: 'max_clkr' may be
used uninitialized in this function
Kinda interesting to note that C=2 does'nt list all potential gcc
warnings :( if one wanted a collated list of all warnings, rm .../*.o
helps I guess.
C=2 only runs sparse - so if you're committing patches to fix sparse
warnings, that's what you should be interested in.
I'd suggest that fixing sparse warnings and GCC warnings in a single
patch is probably not the best thing to do - GCC warnings are less
subjective than sparse warnings.
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote, on 01/04/2011 06:25 PM:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:37:23PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
quoted
hmm.. minor nit (with codesourcery 2010.09-50 - 4.5.1):
rm arch/arm/mach-omap2/*.o;make C=1 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr;make C=2
arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr1;diff Kerr Kerr1
[..]
1,4d0
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c: In function 'omap_mux_get_by_name':
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c:163:17: warning: 'found_mode' may be used
uninitialized in this function
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c: In function 'omap2_clksel_set_parent':
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c:100:35: warning: 'max_clkr' may be
used uninitialized in this function
Kinda interesting to note that C=2 does'nt list all potential gcc
warnings :( if one wanted a collated list of all warnings, rm .../*.o
helps I guess.
C=2 only runs sparse - so if you're committing patches to fix sparse
warnings, that's what you should be interested in.
I'd suggest that fixing sparse warnings and GCC warnings in a single
patch is probably not the best thing to do - GCC warnings are less
subjective than sparse warnings.