[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130426192208.GA2945@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:22:08 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
To: Emil Goode <emilgoode@...il.com>
Cc: airlied@...ux.ie, swarren@...dotorg.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/tegra: Include header drm/drm.h
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 07:49:51PM +0200, Emil Goode wrote:
> Include definitions of used types by including drm/drm.h
>
> Sparse output:
> /usr/include/drm/tegra_drm.h:21:
> found __[us]{8,16,32,64} type without
> #include <linux/types.h>
>
> Signed-off-by: Emil Goode <emilgoode@...il.com>
> ---
> include/uapi/drm/tegra_drm.h | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/tegra_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/tegra_drm.h
> index 6e132a2..73bde4e 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/drm/tegra_drm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/tegra_drm.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
> #ifndef _UAPI_TEGRA_DRM_H_
> #define _UAPI_TEGRA_DRM_H_
>
> +#include <drm/drm.h>
> +
sparse complains about linux/types.h not being included, so I wonder if
it makes more sense to include that instead of drm/drm.h. In fact I have
a fix that does exactly that in a local branch and was going to put that
into my fixes branch. It's a bit more lightweight.
On the other hand, some drivers already include drm/drm.h in the public
header so I don't really have any objections to this patch.
Thierry
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists