2014-10-07 12:15 GMT-03:00 Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> commit b680c37a4d145cf4d8f2b24e46b1163e5ceb1d35
> Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri Sep 19 18:27:27 2014 +0200
>
> drm/i915: DocBook integration for frontbuffer tracking
>
> Moved the code to intel_frontbuffer.c but this bit
> got stranded.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
Fixes the following warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c:76:13: warning:
‘intel_increase_pllclock’ declared ‘static’ but never defined
[-Wunused-function]
I just noticed that intel_decrease_pllclock() is still on
intel_display.c. It's kinda weird to have the increase() function in
one file and the decrease() function in another. Maybe our
layering/abstraction could be improved... Daniel?
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 1363a93..cbe2a5d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -73,8 +73,6 @@ static const uint32_t intel_cursor_formats[] = {
> DRM_FORMAT_ARGB8888,
> };
>
> -static void intel_increase_pllclock(struct drm_device *dev,
> - enum pipe pipe);
> static void intel_crtc_update_cursor(struct drm_crtc *crtc, bool on);
>
> static void i9xx_crtc_clock_get(struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Paulo Zanoni
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
