On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:06:33AM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:39:58PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 06:24:25PM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:17:27PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > Based on the design pattern utilized in the CM GCR and L2-sync base > > > > address getters implementation the platform-specific code is capable to > > > > re-define the getters and re-use the weakly defined initial versions. But > > > > since the re-definition is supposed to be done in another source file the > > > > interface methods have been globally defined which in its turn causes the > > > > "no previous prototype" warning printed should the re-definition is > > > > finally introduced. Since without the global declarations the pattern can > > > > be considered as incomplete and causing the warning printed, fix it by > > > > providing the respective methods prototype declarations in > > > > "arch/mips/include/asm/mips-cm.h". > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Note as I mentioned in the previous patch, since the weak implementation > > > > of the getters isn't utilized other than as a default implementation of > > > > the original methods, we can convert the denoted pattern to a simple > > > > __weak attributed methods. Let me know if that would be more preferable. > > > > > > > > how about simply remove __mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() and do everything > > > via mips_cm_phys_base(). And at the moment without anyone overriding > > > mips_cm_phys_base I tend to keep static without __weak. If someone > > > needs, we can change it. Does this make sense ? > > > > To be honest my arch code (not submitted yet) do override the > > mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() method. The memory just behind the CM2 > > that's fine, I just wanted to know a reason for having it provided as > weak symbol. > > > What about instead of that I'll just convert both mips_cm_phys_base() > > and mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() to being defined with the underscored > > methods body and assign the __weak attribute to them? > > works for me ;-) I'll pick patch 3/4 of this series, so no need to > resend them. Ok. Thanks. I'll submit the respective patch(es) in a several days. -Serge(y) > > Thomas. > > -- > Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a > good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
