[PATCH -next] clk: tegra: dfll: Make symbol 'tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables' static

[PATCH -next] clk: tegra: dfll: Make symbol 'tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables' static

[Wei Yongjun]

Fixes the following sparse warning:

drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c:244:18: warning:
 symbol 'tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables' was not declared. Should it be static?

Fixes: 2b2dbc2f94e5 ("clk: tegra: dfll: add CVB tables for Tegra210")
Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c
index 4b6dd2b3767f..e8ec42bf8638 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static const unsigned long tegra210_cpu_max_freq_table[] = {
 		{          0UL,	{       0, 0, 0 } }, \
 	}
 
-struct cvb_table tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables[] = {
+static struct cvb_table tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables[] = {
 	{
 		.speedo_id = 10,
 		.process_id = 0,

Re: [PATCH -next] clk: tegra: dfll: Make symbol 'tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables' static

[Thierry Reding]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2040 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 07:06:09AM +0000, Wei Yongjun wrote:
> Fixes the following sparse warning:
> 
> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c:244:18: warning:
>  symbol 'tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Fixes: 2b2dbc2f94e5 ("clk: tegra: dfll: add CVB tables for Tegra210")
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

ARM SoC maintainers,

This fixes a sparse warning introduced in the tegra-for-5.1-clk pull
request that you pulled last week. Do you want me to send you another
pull request (perhaps give it a few more days in case other fixes are
going to show up) or would you rather apply this directly?

In the latter case, here's a link to patchwork:

	http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1043804/

and this is:

Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

In the meantime, I'll go and improve my build scripts to run sparse as
well. I used to do that but then removed it again because it was so
noisy that it was impossible to filter out the Tegra-specific bits. I
wonder if I could do something like have the build scripts build the
branch base first, without sparse checking, and then fast-forward to the
branch head and build again with sparse checking enabled. That way I
should only be seeing the sparse results for code that was modified in
the branch.

Thierry

> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c
> index 4b6dd2b3767f..e8ec42bf8638 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c
> @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static const unsigned long tegra210_cpu_max_freq_table[] = {
>  		{          0UL,	{       0, 0, 0 } }, \
>  	}
>  
> -struct cvb_table tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables[] = {
> +static struct cvb_table tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables[] = {
>  	{
>  		.speedo_id = 10,
>  		.process_id = 0,
> 
> 
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH -next] clk: tegra: dfll: Make symbol 'tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables' static

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:39 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 07:06:09AM +0000, Wei Yongjun wrote:
> > Fixes the following sparse warning:
> >
> > drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c:244:18: warning:
> >  symbol 'tegra210_cpu_cvb_tables' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > Fixes: 2b2dbc2f94e5 ("clk: tegra: dfll: add CVB tables for Tegra210")
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124-dfll-fcpu.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> ARM SoC maintainers,
>
> This fixes a sparse warning introduced in the tegra-for-5.1-clk pull
> request that you pulled last week. Do you want me to send you another
> pull request (perhaps give it a few more days in case other fixes are
> going to show up) or would you rather apply this directly?
>
> In the latter case, here's a link to patchwork:
>
>         http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1043804/
>
> and this is:
>
> Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

Applied to arm/drivers, thanks!

>
> In the meantime, I'll go and improve my build scripts to run sparse as
> well. I used to do that but then removed it again because it was so
> noisy that it was impossible to filter out the Tegra-specific bits. I
> wonder if I could do something like have the build scripts build the
> branch base first, without sparse checking, and then fast-forward to the
> branch head and build again with sparse checking enabled. That way I
> should only be seeing the sparse results for code that was modified in
> the branch.

I should also restart my regular testing to find regressions, I'm
currently not doing any regular builds but rely on the bots.

      Arnd