[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201113093924.GI4556@piout.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:39:24 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/25] arch: arm: mach-at91: pm: Move prototypes to
mutually included header
On 12/11/2020 10:48:10+0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 12/11/2020 09:39:18+0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > Both the caller and the supplier's source file should have access to
> > > the include file containing the prototypes.
> > >
> > > Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
> > >
> > > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c:1637:6: warning: no previous prototype for ‘at91_pinctrl_gpio_suspend’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > 1637 | void at91_pinctrl_gpio_suspend(void)
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c:1661:6: warning: no previous prototype for ‘at91_pinctrl_gpio_resume’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > 1661 | void at91_pinctrl_gpio_resume(void)
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Cc: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
> > > Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
> > > Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
> > > Cc: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > > ---
>
> [...]
>
> > > diff --git a/include/soc/at91/pm.h b/include/soc/at91/pm.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000000000..0fd5093f7f73a
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/soc/at91/pm.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> > > +/*
> > > + * atmel platform data
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PINCTRL_AT91
> >
> > Shouldn't that be a header guard instead of depending on PINCTRL_AT91 ?
>
> I copied the same semantics from the header it was taken from.
>
> Happy to turn it into a proper header file too.
I guess that would be better. How do you expect this patch to be merged?
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists