[PATCH] drm/radeon: use NULL instead of 0
(resend) Fix sparse NULL/0 warning: drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c:1845:15: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] diffstat:= drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff -Naurp ./drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c~radeon_null ./drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c --- ./drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c~radeon_null 2005-02-15 13:48:45.094497640 -0800 +++ ./drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c 2005-02-15 20:32:14.109168000 -0800 @@ -1842,7 +1842,7 @@ static int free_surface(DRMFILE filp, dr dev_priv-surfaces[s-surface_index].refcount--; if (dev_priv-surfaces[s-surface_index].refcount == 0) dev_priv-surfaces[s-surface_index].flags = 0; - s-filp = 0; + s-filp = NULL; radeon_apply_surface_regs(s-surface_index, dev_priv); return 0; } --- --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595alloc_id=14396op=click -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[PATCH] radeon_state: use NULL instead of 0 for ptr.
Fix sparse NULL/0 warning: drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c:1845:15: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] diffstat:= drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff -Naurp ./drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c~radeon_null ./drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c --- ./drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c~radeon_null 2005-02-15 13:48:45.094497640 -0800 +++ ./drivers/char/drm/radeon_state.c 2005-02-15 20:32:14.109168000 -0800 @@ -1842,7 +1842,7 @@ static int free_surface(DRMFILE filp, dr dev_priv-surfaces[s-surface_index].refcount--; if (dev_priv-surfaces[s-surface_index].refcount == 0) dev_priv-surfaces[s-surface_index].flags = 0; - s-filp = 0; + s-filp = NULL; radeon_apply_surface_regs(s-surface_index, dev_priv); return 0; } --- --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595alloc_id=14396op=click -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: radeon: Unknown symbol i2c_bit_add_bus
Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: thanks, Now I can load radeon.ko after modprobe i2c_via.ko Do you have i2c-algo-bit.ko loaded (or built into your kernel image)? That's where i2c_bit_add|del_bus are. Check this .config symbol: CONFIG_I2C_ALGOBIT=y (on my system) On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 17:27 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: On Monday 13 December 2004 17:15, Dave Airlie wrote: radeon: Unknown symbol i2c_bit_add_bus radeon: Unknown symbol i2c_bit_del_bus you need i2c support modules loaded.. modprobe the radeon driver it should all work then... Shouldn't radeon.ko build without i2c hooks if CONFIG_I2C == NO ? - ajax -- ~Randy --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[PATCH] SIS DRM bool. bitfields
(resend)
Make 1-bit fields be unsigned (no sign bit :).
sparse complains about them:
drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h:88:12: warning: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h:89:16: warning: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diffstat:=
drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -Naurp ./drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h~sis_bits ./drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h
--- ./drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h~sis_bits2004-08-13 22:36:57.0
-0700
+++ ./drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h 2004-10-11 07:59:31.861263400 -0700
@@ -85,8 +85,8 @@ struct mem_block_t {
struct mem_block_t *heap;
int ofs,size;
int align;
- int free:1;
- int reserved:1;
+ unsigned int free:1;
+ unsigned int reserved:1;
};
typedef struct mem_block_t TMemBlock;
typedef struct mem_block_t *PMemBlock;
---
---
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
--
___
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: __FUNCTION__ vs __func__
Eric Anholt wrote: One of our developers who is working with a non-gcc compiler has asked if we could convert __FUNCTION__ usage in the drm to __func__. __func__ has the benefits of being shorter, being c99, and still being just fine for gcc 2.95. Any opposition? Most of linux-kernel still uses prefers __FUNCTION__ since it is compatible with gcc 2.95. IOW, __func__ patches are rejected in other linux-kernel subsystems. -- ~Randy --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588alloc_id=12065op=click -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[PATCH] sis: use unsigned 1-bit fields
Hi,
1-bit fields should be unsigned (i.e., no sign bit).
Sparse also complains about them, as in:
drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h:88:12: warning: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h:89:16: warning: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
Is current linux-2.6.9-bk tree anything close to DRM CVS?
Maybe this has already been fixed...
Thanks,
--
~Randy
Make 1-bit fields be unsigned (no sign bit :).
sparse complains about them:
drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h:88:12: warning: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h:89:16: warning: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diffstat:=
drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -Naurp ./drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h~sis_bits ./drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h
--- ./drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h~sis_bits 2004-08-13 22:36:57.0 -0700
+++ ./drivers/char/drm/sis_ds.h 2004-10-11 07:59:31.861263400 -0700
@@ -85,8 +85,8 @@ struct mem_block_t {
struct mem_block_t *heap;
int ofs,size;
int align;
- int free:1;
- int reserved:1;
+ unsigned int free:1;
+ unsigned int reserved:1;
};
typedef struct mem_block_t TMemBlock;
typedef struct mem_block_t *PMemBlock;
Re: drm patch
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:44:51 +0100 (IST) Dave Airlie wrote: | | DRM_INFO(Used old pci detect: framebuffer loaded\n); | | we print that... it should be enough I think.. | | Dave. | On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Mike Mestnik wrote: | | Not to be a nit prick, but shoulden't there at least be a warning that | VesaFB and the DRM are using the same Hardware? Thought this is | supported. | | Warning: VesaFB and the DRM are using the\n | same Hardware, Thought this is supported. Are you saying that those messages mean the same thing?? -- ~Randy --- SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 Save 50% off Retail on Ink Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285 -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [Dri-devel] Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle fixes for drm_agpsupport
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:43:40 -0700 Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 07:47:11AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: | ... | Indeed I have. And there is a reason that we have a policy at BitMover | where formatting changes are prohibited and we make people redo their | changesets until they get them right. | | In other words, you are welcome to write a revision control system | which can look through the formatting changes and give you the semantic | knowledge that you want. We'd love to see how it is done and then do | it in BitKeeper :) | | | You should allow for changes that are formatting change only, with no | actual code structural change. | You could pass the results through stage 1 of gcc, and only allow it if the | parsing tree is identical. | | I was originally going to suggest just passing it through indent, but | that would not come out right, if someone added braces to clarify a | one-line conditional. I don't think that BK should know/recognize format-only changes. However, it would be nice when using bk revtool, one could be looking at a few targeted lines of a changeset and then click [Prev Rev][Next Rev] and see the same lines in previous/next revisions of the file. And if it already does this, great. How do I do that? I know how to left-click rev-A and right-click rev-B to see changes between them, but then I have to search thru potentially several 100 or 1000 lines of code for the 10 lines that I'm looking for. (and it would be nice if one could choose to have the lines numbered). -- ~Randy [who thinks this should be on bk-users] --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
