[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
