On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:58:20PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:57:06AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> 
> >> wrote:
> >> > On to, 2016-09-15 at 16:28 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> >> Fix sparse warnings:
> >> >> 
> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:1179:5: warning: symbol
> >> >> 'i915_driver_load' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >> >> 
> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:1267:6: warning: symbol
> >> >> 'i915_driver_unload' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >> >> 
> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:2444:25: warning: symbol 'i915_pm_ops'
> >> >> was not declared. Should it be static?
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> > Hmm, Chris, were not these change in the middle of a series, did the
> >> > cleanup patches just fall off?
> >> 
> >> Can we just please use whichever patches that fix the issue?
> >
> > It was deliberate placement to avoid having those symbols exposed to
> > every user of i915_drv.h, i.e. everyone. Limit i915_drv.h to the
> > interface exposed by i915_drv.c and so used only by a handful of files.
> 
> I can see that, but I prefer to get the warnings gone.

Yeah, non-static declarations need to be in header files, otherwise
there's not much point in them really (since the compiler can't compare
the delcaration with the definition).

we also need to split up our headers I think, and I plan to start doing
that when extracting bits and pieces from intel_display.c. In drm core at
least having 1:1 between headers and source files seems to work rather
well.

Meanwhile on Jani's patch:

Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to