> > > > 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? [Marri] Hello Greg, I am working on restructuring ppc4xx/adma.c driver into Common code and SoC specific code. This way I can add support for similar DMA engines. In this process I had to declare some Of the functions non static so that I can suppress "defined but not used" and "used but not defined". Here is what series of patches I planned to work on. 1. First set patches to re-arrange the code. Functionally no change except Structured into different files. 2. Second set to rename the common functions which are shared between SoC dma-engines. 3. Add support of new DMA engine for different SoC. I am working on first patch set right now. 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
