On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:13:58AM -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. Much better, thanks, I'll queue these up when the merge window opens back up in a few weeks. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
