From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:02:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] : fix compilation warnings with DT disabled Message-Id: <5130B506.5020908@gmail.com> List-Id: References: <201302190258.25726.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <20130301070925.GA24369@verge.net.au> <5130B12F.20409@gmail.com> <5130B1A7.9060001@gmail.com> <5130B34F.2090700@cogentembedded.com> In-Reply-To: <5130B34F.2090700@cogentembedded.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Simon Horman , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, vladimir.barinov@cogentembedded.com On 03/01/2013 07:55 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 01-03-2013 17:48, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>>> Fix the following compilation warnings (in Simon Horman's >>>>> renesas.git repo): > >>>>> In file included from arch/arm/mach-shmobile/setup-r8a7779.c:24:0: >>>>> include/linux/of_platform.h:107:13: warning: ‘struct of_device_id’ >>>>> declared >>>>> inside parameter list [enabled by default] >>>>> include/linux/of_platform.h:107:13: warning: its scope is only this >>>>> definition >>>>> or declaration, which is probably not what you want [enabled by >>>>> default] >>>>> include/linux/of_platform.h:107:13: warning: ‘struct device_node’ >>>>> declared >>>>> inside parameter list [enabled by default] > >>>>> only #include's headers with definitions of >>>>> the above >>>>> mentioned structures if CONFIG_OF_DEVICE=y but uses them even if >>>>> not. One >>>>> solution is to move some #include's out of #ifdef CONFIG_OF_DEVICE >>>>> and use >>>>> incomplete declarations for the rest of the structures where the >>>>> #ifdef move >>>>> doesn't help... > >>>>> Reported-by: Vladimir Barinov >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov > >>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman > >>>> Grant, could you consider taking this patch? > >>> Yes, I can, but I don't seem to have the original patch. Can you send it >>> again. > >> Nevermind. Found it. I'll apply it. > > Will you drop 'struct device_node' declaration then or should I > resend? In fact, I think I should better resend it with the changelog > somewhat edited. No, I plan to leave it as is and not rely on device.h by chance declaring device_node. Rob > >> Rob > > WBR, Sergei >