Hi Kumar,
CC Nishad, Magnus, linux-renesas-soc,
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 8:40 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 12:04:41PM IST, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Given that drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h is only included by
> > drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.c, shouldn't these variables just be
> > declared static in emxx_udc.c and removed from emxx_udc.h?
> >
>
> Either would be correct. I went this way because it was originally trying to
> (incorrectly) define a global variable instead. I guess they can be static now
> and when more users are added, the linkage can be adjusted as needed.
>
> Here's another version of the patch:
>
> --
> From 5835ad916ceeba620c85bc32f52ecd69f21f8dab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 12:53:39 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] staging: emxx_udc: Make incorrectly defined global static
>
> The global gpio_desc pointer and int vbus_irq were defined in the header,
> instead put the definitions in the translation unit and make them static as
> there's only a single consumer in emxx_udc.c.
>
> This fixes the following sparse warnings for this driver:
> drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.c: note: in included file:
> drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h:23:18: warning: symbol 'vbus_gpio' was not
> declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h:24:5: warning: symbol 'vbus_irq' was not
> declared. Should it be static?
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for your patch!
> --- a/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,9 @@
> #define DRIVER_DESC "EMXX UDC driver"
> #define DMA_ADDR_INVALID (~(dma_addr_t)0)
>
> +static struct gpio_desc *vbus_gpio;
> +static int vbus_irq;
While I agree these must be static, I expect the driver to be still
broken, as vbus_gpio is never set?
Commit 48101806c52203f6 ("Staging: emxx_udc: Switch to the gpio
descriptor interface") introduced both variables, which was presumably
never tested.
Magnus: perhaps we should just remove this driver?
> +
> static const char driver_name[] = "emxx_udc";
> static const char driver_desc[] = DRIVER_DESC;
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h b/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h
> index bca614d69..c9e37a1b8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h
> @@ -20,8 +20,6 @@
> /* below hacked up for staging integration */
> #define GPIO_VBUS 0 /* GPIO_P153 on KZM9D */
> #define INT_VBUS 0 /* IRQ for GPIO_P153 */
> -struct gpio_desc *vbus_gpio;
> -int vbus_irq;
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
