Re: [PATCH RESEND] cpufreq: exynos: Fix build error of no type of module_init

Viresh Kumar
2014-01-22T14:42:52Z

On 22 January 2014 19:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:
> Add missing include to fix build error:
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:292:1: warning: data definition has no type or storage class [enabled by default]
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:292:1: error: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘module_init’ [-Werror=implicit-int]
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:292:1: warning: parameter names (without types) in function declaration [enabled by default]
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:292:1: warning: data definition has no type or storage class [enabled by default]
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:292:1: error: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘module_exit’ [-Werror=implicit-int]
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:292:1: warning: parameter names (without types) in function declaration [enabled by default]
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c:292:1: warning: ‘exynos_cpufreq_platdrv_init’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> make[2]: *** [drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [drivers/cpufreq] Error 2
>
> Build error happens on gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5)
> and was introduced by commit d568b6f71df1 (cpufreq: exynos: Convert
> exynos-cpufreq to platform driver).
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
> Cc: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> Cc: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> index fcd2914d081a..fa54c2b88dd7 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <linux/suspend.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>

I am surprised how that patch went through then? And nothing was
reported by kbuild for it..