[PATCH] drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again

[PATCH] drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again

[Jani Nikula]

The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit
08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to
sparse warning:

drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol
'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static?

Make the function static again.

Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs")
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
index 1b83d6e2ae69..73f0338faf9f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
@@ -3379,7 +3379,7 @@ void bdw_disable_vblank(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_priv->irq_lock, irqflags);
 }
 
-void i945gm_vblank_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
+static void i945gm_vblank_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
 {
 	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =
 		container_of(work, struct drm_i915_private, i945gm_vblank.work);
-- 
2.20.1

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 10:19:14)
> The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit
> 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to
> sparse warning:
> 
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol
> 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Make the function static again.
> 
> Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs")
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>

3 people (well 2 and a robot) send patches for the same compiler
warning! That means something, right?

Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 10:19:14)
>> The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit
>> 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to
>> sparse warning:
>> 
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol
>> 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> 
>> Make the function static again.
>> 
>> Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs")
>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>
> 3 people (well 2 and a robot) send patches for the same compiler
> warning! That means something, right?

That writing patches is more rewarding than reading patches written by
others...? ;)

> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Thanks, likewise, let's see whose patch passes CI first. Looks like your
patch regresses module reload. :D

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 11:26:16)
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 10:19:14)
> >> The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit
> >> 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to
> >> sparse warning:
> >> 
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol
> >> 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >> 
> >> Make the function static again.
> >> 
> >> Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs")
> >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> >
> > 3 people (well 2 and a robot) send patches for the same compiler
> > warning! That means something, right?
> 
> That writing patches is more rewarding than reading patches written by
> others...? ;)
> 
> > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> 
> Thanks, likewise, let's see whose patch passes CI first. Looks like your
> patch regresses module reload. :D

Now known to cibuglog, you cheat!
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-06-27 11:28:37)
> Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 11:26:16)
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 10:19:14)
> > >> The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit
> > >> 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to
> > >> sparse warning:
> > >> 
> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol
> > >> 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > >> 
> > >> Make the function static again.
> > >> 
> > >> Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs")
> > >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> > >
> > > 3 people (well 2 and a robot) send patches for the same compiler
> > > warning! That means something, right?
> > 
> > That writing patches is more rewarding than reading patches written by
> > others...? ;)
> > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > 
> > Thanks, likewise, let's see whose patch passes CI first. Looks like your
> > patch regresses module reload. :D
> 
> Now known to cibuglog, you cheat!

I called it a draw and pushed both merged into one :)
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/62841/
State : failure

== Summary ==

Applying: drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
No changes -- Patch already applied.

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx