[firefly] [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning

[Matei Oprea]

I did it against your master branch of staging.git. I guess that's why
doesn't apply at all. I switched branches to staging-next after your
e-mail.

Thanks and sorry !

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:33:19AM +0200, Matei Oprea wrote:
>> This fixes the following sparse warning:
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:43:19:
>> warning: symbol 'hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:47:1:
>> warning: symbol 'show_two' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:99:1:
>> warning: symbol 'hdw_sn_get' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> *drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:149:1:
>> warning: symbol 'prep_hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:169:1:
>> warning: symbol 'cleanup_ioremap' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:195:1:
>> warning: symbol 'cleanup_devs' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:293:1:
>> * warning: symbol 'c4hw_attach_all' was not declared. Should it be static?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matei Oprea <eu at opreamatei.ro>
>> Cc: ROSEdu Kernel Community <firefly at lists.rosedu.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c |   14 +++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c b/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
>> index 02b4f8f..694047a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
>> @@ -40,10 +40,10 @@ void        c4_stopwd (ci_t *);
>>  struct net_device * __init c4_add_dev (hdw_info_t *, int, unsigned long, unsigned long, int, int);
>>
>>
>> -struct s_hdw_info hdw_info[MAX_BOARDS];
>> +static struct s_hdw_info hdw_info[MAX_BOARDS];
>>
>>
>> -void        __init
>> +static void        __init
>>  show_two (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
>>  {
>>      ci_t       *ci;
>> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ show_two (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
>
>
> This patch doesn't apply at all, did you do it against my staging-next
> branch of staging.git or linux-next?  Or did you do it against Linus's
> tree?  If Linus's tree, that's quite "old" for development stuff, always
> work against linux-next to avoid making the same changes others already
> have in the past.
>
> greg k-h



-- 
Oprea Matei

ᐧ