> You definitely need to be able to resolve "used but not defined" and > "defined but not used" warnings before tackling a driver conversion > like this. In light of this comment I wonder if it would be > appropriate to submit your original driver, that just duplicated > routines from the ppc440spe driver, to the -staging tree. Then it > would be available for someone familiar with driver conversions to > take a shot at unifying. > > Greg, is this an appropriate use of -staging? The other option is to define non static functions in ppc440spe-adma.c which are used in common File adma.c . This way there will not be any warnings. Is this something acceptable ? Here is the break down ppc440spe-adma.c: It will have all the 440spe SoC specific functions. ppc4xx_adma.h will have the declarations from 440spe-adma.c as non static. adma.c will have common functions which are independent of SoC. Please suggest. Regards, -Marri -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
