linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: designware: make dw_pcie_prog_*_atu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:34:48 -0400
From:   "Jingoo Han" <jingoohan1@...il.com>
To:     "'Joao Pinto'" <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        "'Carlos Palminha'" <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: designware: make dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll() static

On Monday, July 17, 2017 9:28 AM, Joao Pinto wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Às 2:13 PM de 7/17/2017, Carlos Palminha escreveu:
> > Helper functions dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll don't need to be in global
> scope,
> > so make it static.
> >
> > Cleans up sparse warnings:
> > - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it
> be static?
> > - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it
> be static?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Carlos Palminha <palminha@...opsys.com>
> > ---
> > Patch made against linux-next tree, tag next-20170714
> >
> >  drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-
> designware.c
> > index 0e03af279259..48d6d0712ea8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(struct dw_pcie
> *pci, u32 index, u32 reg,
> >  	dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val);
> >  }
> >
> > -void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index,
> int type,
> > +static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int
> index, int type,
> >  				      u64 cpu_addr, u64 pci_addr, u32 size)
> >  {
> >  	u32 retries, val;
> > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ib_unroll(struct dw_pcie
> *pci, u32 index, u32 reg,
> >  	dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val);
> >  }
> >
> > -int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int
> bar,
> > +static int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int
> index, int bar,
> >  				    u64 cpu_addr, enum dw_pcie_as_type as_type)
> >  {
> >  	int type;
> > --
> > 2.11.0
> >
> 
> That indeed escaped in the refactoring :) Thanks!
> 
> Acked-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>

Acked-by: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>

Best regards,
Jingoo Han