Hi Greg,
all the build warnings have been taken care of in this series.
some of the patches will generate a few checkpatch warning and for some I tried
to address few of the chcekpatch warnings while modifying them.
regards
sudip
Sudip Mukherjee (6):
staging: sm750fb: remove unused functions
staging: sm750fb: remove unused variables
staging: sm750fb: correct function return
staging: sm750fb: correct incompatible pointer type
staging: sm750fb: fix mixed declarations
staging: sm750fb: correct integer comparison
drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_display.c | 11 -----
drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_swi2c.c | 8 ----
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 70 ++------------------------------
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 11 ++---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.c | 4 +-
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.h | 4 +-
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.c | 5 +--
7 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-)
--
1.8.1.2
removed the functions which were not used anywhere.
it has been build tested also confirmed with git grep that there is
no other reference of these functions.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_display.c | 11 ------
drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_swi2c.c | 8 ----
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 65 --------------------------------
3 files changed, 84 deletions(-)
removed some variables which were only declared but were never used.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
fixed the build warning about comparison of pointer and integer.
end of string was being compared to NULL.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
we were getting build warning about mixed declaration. the variable
is now declared at the beginning of the block.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
we were getting build warnings about assignment of incompatible
pointer types. some of the function definitions were having wrong
return type or arguments.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 11 ++++++-----
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.c | 4 ++--
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.h | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ struct lynx_accel{volatileunsignedchar__iomem*dpPortBase;/* function fointers */-int(*de_init)(structlynx_accel*);+void(*de_init)(structlynx_accel*);int(*de_wait)(void);/* see if hardware ready to work */
@@ -397,8 +397,8 @@ static unsigned int deGetTransparency(struct lynx_accel * accel)inthw_imageblit(structlynx_accel*accel,-unsignedchar*pSrcbuf,/* pointer to start of source buffer in system memory */-intsrcDelta,/* Pitch value (in bytes) of the source buffer, +ive means top down and -ive mean button up */+constchar*pSrcbuf,/* pointer to start of source buffer in system memory */+unsignedintsrcDelta,/* Pitch value (in bytes) of the source buffer, +ive means top down and -ive mean button up */unsignedintstartBit,/* Mono data can start at any bit in a byte, this value should be 0 to 7 */unsignedintdBase,/* Address of destination: offset in frame buffer */unsignedintdPitch,/* Pitch value of destination surface in BYTE */
@@ -260,8 +260,8 @@ unsigned int rop2);inthw_imageblit(structlynx_accel*accel,-unsignedchar*pSrcbuf,/* pointer to start of source buffer in system memory */-intsrcDelta,/* Pitch value (in bytes) of the source buffer, +ive means top down and -ive mean button up */+constchar*pSrcbuf,/* pointer to start of source buffer in system memory */+unsignedintsrcDelta,/* Pitch value (in bytes) of the source buffer, +ive means top down and -ive mean button up */unsignedintstartBit,/* Mono data can start at any bit in a byte, this value should be 0 to 7 */unsignedintdBase,/* Address of destination: offset in frame buffer */unsignedintdPitch,/* Pitch value of destination surface in BYTE */
hw_cursor_setData2() is a function with void return type but it was
returning an integer.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:46:55PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
quoted hunk
we were getting build warnings about assignment of incompatible
pointer types. some of the function definitions were having wrong
return type or arguments.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 11 ++++++-----
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.c | 4 ++--
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.h | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
That's a nice cleanup, but it's not even the correct cleanup.
Please just fix the specific warning, don't mix what you are doing in
one patch. You aren't documenting this in the changelog information, so
I have to reject it, sorry.
greg k-h
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:46:51PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
Hi Greg,
all the build warnings have been taken care of in this series.
some of the patches will generate a few checkpatch warning and for some I tried
to address few of the chcekpatch warnings while modifying them.
Don't mix what you do in a single patch please.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:11:00PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:46:55PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
quoted
we were getting build warnings about assignment of incompatible
pointer types. some of the function definitions were having wrong
return type or arguments.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 11 ++++++-----
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.c | 4 ++--
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_accel.h | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
That's a nice cleanup, but it's not even the correct cleanup.
Oops, sorry, it is the correct cleanup, I was looking at the '*'
placement, not the const part.
but the patch needs to be redone, I'll just go fix up the build warnings
for now...
greg k-h
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:17:54PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:11:00PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:46:55PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
quoted
we were getting build warnings about assignment of incompatible
<snip>
quoted
That's a nice cleanup, but it's not even the correct cleanup.
Oops, sorry, it is the correct cleanup, I was looking at the '*'
placement, not the const part.
but the patch needs to be redone, I'll just go fix up the build warnings
for now...
thanks Greg for your patience and time to redo this patch. I saw you broke it into two - three different patches.
But just one doubt, was your compiler showing any warning for the patch - "Staging: sm750fb: provide error path for
hw_sm750le_setBLANK()" , commit id - e74ac550298ec4635cc32e99f966568a808fd370 . my compiler didnot show any warning for that.
mine is gcc 4.7.3, is it time to update?
thanks again, and sorry that you had to do fix this. I should have made the patches in a more proper way.
regards
sudip
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:58:42PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:17:54PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:11:00PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:46:55PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
quoted
we were getting build warnings about assignment of incompatible
<snip>
quoted
quoted
That's a nice cleanup, but it's not even the correct cleanup.
Oops, sorry, it is the correct cleanup, I was looking at the '*'
placement, not the const part.
but the patch needs to be redone, I'll just go fix up the build warnings
for now...
thanks Greg for your patience and time to redo this patch. I saw you
broke it into two - three different patches.
But just one doubt, was your compiler showing any warning for the
patch - "Staging: sm750fb: provide error path for
hw_sm750le_setBLANK()" , commit id -
e74ac550298ec4635cc32e99f966568a808fd370 . my compiler didnot show
any warning for that.
mine is gcc 4.7.3, is it time to update?
Yes it is, that's a really old version of gcc. Also please wrap your
email lines at 72 columns :)
thanks again, and sorry that you had to do fix this. I should have
made the patches in a more proper way.
Not a problem, it's part of the learning process.
greg k-h
From: Dan Carpenter <hidden> Date: 2015-03-11 07:58:11
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:46:57PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
quoted hunk
fixed the build warning about comparison of pointer and integer.
end of string was being compared to NULL.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
---
drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)