> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cp2615.c:88:21: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types) > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cp2615.c:88:21: expected unsigned short [usertype] length > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cp2615.c:88:21: got restricted __be16 [usertype] > ... Yes, I have already converted to using __be16 where needed, it will be in the next version of the patch I send. > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cp2615.c:78:5: warning: symbol 'cp2615_init_iop_msg' was not declared. Should it be static? > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cp2615.c:96:5: warning: symbol 'cp2615_init_i2c_msg' was not declared. Should it be static? > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cp2615.c:102:5: warning: symbol 'cp2615_check_status' was not declared. Should it be static? I can forward declare these (copying from the header I used in v1 of the patch), but I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind these warnings... > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cp2615.c:212:27: warning: symbol 'cp2615_i2c_quirks' was not declared. Should it be static? Especially this. I think I will make this static instead, since it won't ever be exported to any other module. > The missing 'static' are what buildbot also reported and are correct. The lkp bot complained about MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE and MODULE_AUTHOR, which, again, I don't see what is wrong with it. > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cp2615.c:244:2: warning: ‘strncpy’ specified bound 48 equals destination size [-Wstringop-truncation] I thought this was the correct way of strncpy... Time to RTFM then, I guess :) > Oh, and are you willing to maintain the driver? If so, please add an > entry to the MAINTAINERS file. Thanks! Sure! I will now send an updated patch, with few additions too.
