Re: [PATCH r2 0/7] STAGING: cxt1e1: Remove sparse warnings and resolve checkpatch issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 09:01:48AM -0500, Michael Welling wrote:
> This patch series resolves the following sparse warnings:
> 
>   CHECK   drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:158:1: warning: symbol 'eeprom_put_byte' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:183:1: warning: symbol 'eeprom_get_byte' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:256:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_eeprom_read' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:296:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_eeprom_write' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:364:1: warning: symbol 'pmcGetBuffValue' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:385:1: warning: symbol 'pmcSetBuffValue' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:403:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_eeprom_read_buffer' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:416:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_eeprom_write_buffer' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:433:1: warning: symbol 'pmcCalcCrc_T01' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:452:1: warning: symbol 'pmcCalcCrc_T02' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:489:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_init_seeprom' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:521:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_verify_cksum' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Also incorporates many indentation and coding style fixes as well as
> the removal of a volatile variable.

Hm, all 7 patches have the same exact subject: line, which isn't good,
as they can't be told apart when looking at the git log :(

Can you fix this up and use unique Subject: lines?

thanks,

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux