On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 05:57:10PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > [ adding Greg ] > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Tirumala Marri <tmarri@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Where ?iop_adma_alloc_slots() is implemented differently between > >> iop13xx and iop3xx. ?In this case why does ppc440spe-adma.h exist? ?If > >> it has code specific to ppe440spe it should just live in the ppe440spe > >> C file. ?If it is truly generic it should move to the base adma.c > >> implementation. ?If you want to reuse a ppe440spe routine just link to > >> it. > > [Marri]That is how I started changing the code. And I see tons of warnings > > Saying "Used but not defined" or "Defined but not used". How should I > > suppress > > Some functions from adma.c are used in ppc440spe-adma.c and some from > > ppc440spe-adma.c > > Are used in adma.c. > > This is part of defining a common interface. Maybe look at the > linkages of how the common ioat_probe() routine is used to support all > three versions of its dma hardware. > > > So I created intermediate file ppc440spe-adma.h with > > inlined > > Functions. In future this will be converted into ppc4xx_adma.h and move > > existing > > SoC specific stuff to ppc440spe-adma.c file. > > 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? Possibly, but I really don't like duplication if possible. What's keeping this code from being fixed up now properly? thanks, greg k-h -- 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
