[PATCH] PCI: dwc: designware: make dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll() static
Helper functions dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll don't need to be in global scope, so make it static. Cleans up sparse warnings: - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it be static? - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it be static? Signed-off-by: Carlos Palminha --- Patch made against linux-next tree, tag next-20170714 drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c index 0e03af279259..48d6d0712ea8 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, u32 index, u32 reg, dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); } -void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int type, +static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int type, u64 cpu_addr, u64 pci_addr, u32 size) { u32 retries, val; @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ib_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, u32 index, u32 reg, dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); } -int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int bar, +static int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int bar, u64 cpu_addr, enum dw_pcie_as_type as_type) { int type; -- 2.11.0
Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: designware: make dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll() static
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:13:34PM +0100, Carlos Palminha wrote: > Helper functions dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll don't need to be in global scope, > so make it static. > > Cleans up sparse warnings: > - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it be > static? > - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it be > static? > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Palminha Applied with acks from Joao and Jingoo to pci/host-designware for v4.14, thanks! I rewrapped these so they still fit in 80 columns, like the rest of the file. > --- > Patch made against linux-next tree, tag next-20170714 > > drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > index 0e03af279259..48d6d0712ea8 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, > u32 index, u32 reg, > dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); > } > > -void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int > type, > +static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, > int type, > u64 cpu_addr, u64 pci_addr, u32 size) > { > u32 retries, val; > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ib_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, > u32 index, u32 reg, > dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); > } > > -int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int bar, > +static int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, > int bar, > u64 cpu_addr, enum dw_pcie_as_type as_type) > { > int type; > -- > 2.11.0 >
Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: designware: make dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll() static
thanks On 02-08-2017 22:50, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:13:34PM +0100, Carlos Palminha wrote: >> Helper functions dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll don't need to be in global scope, >> so make it static. >> >> Cleans up sparse warnings: >> - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it be >> static? >> - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it be >> static? >> >> Signed-off-by: Carlos Palminha > > Applied with acks from Joao and Jingoo to pci/host-designware for v4.14, > thanks! > > I rewrapped these so they still fit in 80 columns, like the rest of the > file. > >> --- >> Patch made against linux-next tree, tag next-20170714 >> >> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c >> b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c >> index 0e03af279259..48d6d0712ea8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c >> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(struct dw_pcie >> *pci, u32 index, u32 reg, >> dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); >> } >> >> -void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int >> type, >> +static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int >> index, int type, >>u64 cpu_addr, u64 pci_addr, u32 size) >> { >> u32 retries, val; >> @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ib_unroll(struct dw_pcie >> *pci, u32 index, u32 reg, >> dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); >> } >> >> -int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int bar, >> +static int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, >> int bar, >> u64 cpu_addr, enum dw_pcie_as_type as_type) >> { >> int type; >> -- >> 2.11.0 >>
Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: designware: make dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll() static
Hi Carlos, Às 2:13 PM de 7/17/2017, Carlos Palminha escreveu: > Helper functions dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll don't need to be in global scope, > so make it static. > > Cleans up sparse warnings: > - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it be > static? > - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it be > static? > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Palminha > --- > Patch made against linux-next tree, tag next-20170714 > > drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > index 0e03af279259..48d6d0712ea8 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, > u32 index, u32 reg, > dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); > } > > -void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int > type, > +static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, > int type, > u64 cpu_addr, u64 pci_addr, u32 size) > { > u32 retries, val; > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ib_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, > u32 index, u32 reg, > dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); > } > > -int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int bar, > +static int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, > int bar, > u64 cpu_addr, enum dw_pcie_as_type as_type) > { > int type; > -- > 2.11.0 > That indeed escaped in the refactoring :) Thanks! Acked-by: Joao Pinto
Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: designware: make dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll() static
On Monday, July 17, 2017 9:28 AM, Joao Pinto wrote: > > > Hi Carlos, > > Às 2:13 PM de 7/17/2017, Carlos Palminha escreveu: > > Helper functions dw_pcie_prog_*_atu_unroll don't need to be in global > scope, > > so make it static. > > > > Cleans up sparse warnings: > > - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it > be static? > > - symbol 'dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll' was not declared. Should it > be static? > > > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Palminha > > --- > > Patch made against linux-next tree, tag next-20170714 > > > > drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie- > designware.c > > index 0e03af279259..48d6d0712ea8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c > > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(struct dw_pcie > *pci, u32 index, u32 reg, > > dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); > > } > > > > -void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, > int type, > > +static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int > index, int type, > > u64 cpu_addr, u64 pci_addr, u32 size) > > { > > u32 retries, val; > > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ib_unroll(struct dw_pcie > *pci, u32 index, u32 reg, > > dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, offset + reg, val); > > } > > > > -int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int > bar, > > +static int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int > index, int bar, > > u64 cpu_addr, enum dw_pcie_as_type as_type) > > { > > int type; > > -- > > 2.11.0 > > > > That indeed escaped in the refactoring :) Thanks! > > Acked-by: Joao Pinto Acked-by: Jingoo Han Best regards, Jingoo Han