From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from exprod5og110.obsmtp.com (exprod5og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.0.20]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 45E85B70A7 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:54:20 +1000 (EST) Received: by qyk33 with SMTP id 33so1395146qyk.20 for ; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:54:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Tirumala Marri References: <1285865736-32074-1-git-send-email-tmarri@apm.com> <20100930190814.52268D2B48C@gemini.denx.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 17:54:20 -0700 Message-ID: <7a4fda4dcac9cc030907f3e5ed8a8967@mail.gmail.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH] PPC4xx: ADMA separating SoC specific functions To: Dan Williams Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Wolfgang Denk , Greg KH , yur@emcraft.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > You definitely need to be able to resolve "used but not defined" and > "defined but not used" warnings before tackling a driver conversion > like this. In light of this comment I wonder if it would be > appropriate to submit your original driver, that just duplicated > routines from the ppc440spe driver, to the -staging tree. Then it > would be available for someone familiar with driver conversions to > take a shot at unifying. > > Greg, is this an appropriate use of -staging? The other option is to define non static functions in ppc440spe-adma.c which are used in common File adma.c . This way there will not be any warnings. Is this something acceptable ? Here is the break down ppc440spe-adma.c: It will have all the 440spe SoC specific functions. ppc4xx_adma.h will have the declarations from 440spe-adma.c as non static. adma.c will have common functions which are independent of SoC. Please suggest. Regards, -Marri