Re: [PATCH v2 -next] powerpc: kernel/time.c - cleanup warnings

["heying (H)" <heying24@huawei.com>]

Dear,


在 2021/3/24 6:18, Alexandre Belloni 写道:
> Hello,
>
> On 23/03/2021 05:12:57-0400, He Ying wrote:
>> We found these warnings in arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c as follows:
>> warning: symbol 'decrementer_max' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> warning: symbol 'rtc_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> warning: symbol 'dtl_consumer' was not declared. Should it be static?
>>
>> Declare 'decrementer_max' and 'rtc_lock' in powerpc asm/time.h.
>> Rename 'rtc_lock' in drviers/rtc/rtc-vr41xx.c to 'vr41xx_rtc_lock' to
>> avoid the conflict with the variable in powerpc asm/time.h.
>> Move 'dtl_consumer' definition behind "include <asm/dtl.h>" because it
>> is declared there.
>>
>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: He Ying <heying24@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> - Instead of including linux/mc146818rtc.h in powerpc kernel/time.c, declare
>>    rtc_lock in powerpc asm/time.h.
>>
> V1 was actually the correct thing to do. rtc_lock is there exactly
> because chrp and maple are using mc146818 compatible RTCs. This is then
> useful because then drivers/char/nvram.c is enabled. The proper fix
> would be to scrap all of that and use rtc-cmos for those platforms as
> this drives the RTC properly and exposes the NVRAM for the mc146818.

Do you mean that 'rtc_lock' declared in linux/mc146818rtc.h points to

same thing as that defined in powerpc kernel/time.c? And you think V1

was correct? Oh, I should have added you to my patch V1 senders:)

>
> Or at least, if there are no users for the char/nvram driver on those
> two platforms, remove the spinlock and stop enabling CONFIG_NVRAM or
> more likely rename the symbol as it seems to be abused by both chrp and
> powermac.
>
> I'm not completely against the rename in vr41xxx but the fix for the
> warnings can and should be contained in arch/powerpc.

Yes, I agree with you. But I have no choice because there is a compiling 
error.

Maybe there's a better way.

So, what about my patch V1? Should I resend it and add you to senders?


Thanks.