Hi Randy, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote on Mon, 3 Sep 2018 12:32:04 -0700:
> From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > > Fix build warning in <linux/mtd/onenand.h> by adding a "stub" struct > for mtd_oob_ops: > > include/linux/mtd/onenand.h: warning: 'struct mtd_oob_ops' declared inside > parameter list [enabled by default] > include/linux/mtd/onenand.h: warning: its scope is only this definition or > declaration, which is probably not what you want [enabled by default] > > Fixes: 607d1cb10426 ("[MTD] [OneNAND] proper onenand_bbt_read_oob() > prototype") > > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > Cc: Kyungmin Park <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: David Woodhouse <[email protected]> > Cc: Brian Norris <[email protected]> > Cc: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]> > Cc: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > Cc: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> > Cc: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> > Cc: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> > --- > include/linux/mtd/onenand.h | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > --- lnx-419-rc2.orig/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h > +++ lnx-419-rc2/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h > @@ -221,6 +221,7 @@ struct onenand_manufacturers { > char *name; > }; > > +struct mtd_oob_ops; > int onenand_bbt_read_oob(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, > struct mtd_oob_ops *ops); > unsigned onenand_block(struct onenand_chip *this, loff_t addr); That's indeed a working solution, but there are a lot of other structures in this file that come (like mtd_oob_ops) from linux/mtd/mtd.h so I wonder if it would not make more sense to include this header here? Thanks, Miquèl
