thermal: netlink: Fix parameter type of thermal_genl_cpu_capability_event() stub

When building with CONFIG_THERMAL_NETLINK=n, there is a spew of warnings
along the lines of:

  In file included from drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c:27:
  In file included from drivers/thermal/thermal_core.h:15:
  drivers/thermal/thermal_netlink.h:113:71: warning: declaration of 'struct cpu_capability' will not be visible outside of this function [-Wvisibility]
  static inline int thermal_genl_cpu_capability_event(int count, struct cpu_capability *caps)

   ^
  1 warning generated.

'struct cpu_capability' is not forward declared anywhere in the header.
As it turns out, this should really be 'struct thermal_genl_cpu_caps',
which silences the warning and makes the parameter types of the stub match the full function.

Fixes e4b1eb24ce5a ("thermal: netlink: Add a new event to notify CPU

capabilities change")

Reported-by Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/thermal/thermal_netlink.h | 2 +-

 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

drivers/thermal/thermal_netlink.h +0 -0

index 04d1adbbc012..1052f523188d 100644
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static inline int thermal_genl_sampling_temp(int
 id, int temp)
         return 0;
  }

-static inline int thermal_genl_cpu_capability_event(int count, struct cpu_capability *caps)
+static inline int thermal_genl_cpu_capability_event(int count, struct thermal_genl_cpu_caps *caps)
 {
        return 0;
 }

base-commit: 08615cb8c0e1deeca5489d672213fb205fa53c3b

Quoted 15 lines · Nathan Chancellor

When building with CONFIG_THERMAL_NETLINK=n, there is a spew of warnings
along the lines of:

  In file included from drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c:27:
  In file included from drivers/thermal/thermal_core.h:15:
  drivers/thermal/thermal_netlink.h:113:71: warning: declaration of 'struct cpu_capability' will not be visible outside of this function [-Wvisibility]
  static inline int thermal_genl_cpu_capability_event(int count, struct cpu_capability *caps)

   ^
  1 warning generated.

Quoted 6 lines

'struct cpu_capability' is not forward declared anywhere in the header.
As it turns out, this should really be 'struct thermal_genl_cpu_caps',
which silences the warning and makes the parameter types of the stub match the full function.

Thanks for sending the patch. I was about to send this change. Since this patch target only linux-next, don't we need prefix:
"[PATCH -next]" instead of "[PATCH]"?

Quoted 5 lines

Fixes e4b1eb24ce5a ("thermal: netlink: Add a new event to notify CPU

capabilities change")

Reported-by Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by Srinivas Pandruvada <[email protected]>

Quoted 23 lines

---
 drivers/thermal/thermal_netlink.h | 2 +-

 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

drivers/thermal/thermal_netlink.h +0 -0

index 04d1adbbc012..1052f523188d 100644
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static inline int thermal_genl_sampling_temp(int
 id, int temp)
         return 0;
  }

-static inline int thermal_genl_cpu_capability_event(int count, struct cpu_capability *caps)
+static inline int thermal_genl_cpu_capability_event(int count, struct thermal_genl_cpu_caps *caps)
 {
        return 0;
 }

base-commit: 08615cb8c0e1deeca5489d672213fb205fa53c3b

Quoted 22 lines · srinivas pandruvada

Quoted 13 lines · Nathan Chancellor

When building with CONFIG_THERMAL_NETLINK=n, there is a spew of warnings
along the lines of:

In file included from drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c:27:
In file included from drivers/thermal/thermal_core.h:15:
drivers/thermal/thermal_netlink.h:113:71: warning: declaration of
'struct cpu_capability' will not be visible outside of this function [-Wvisibility]
static inline int thermal_genl_cpu_capability_event(int count,
struct cpu_capability *caps)

   ^

Quoted 8 lines

1 warning generated.

'struct cpu_capability' is not forward declared anywhere in the header.
As it turns out, this should really be 'struct thermal_genl_cpu_caps',
which silences the warning and makes the parameter types of the stub match the full function.

Quoted 3 lines

Thanks for sending the patch. I was about to send this change. Since this patch target only linux-next, don't we need prefix:
"[PATCH -next]" instead of "[PATCH]"?

I could probably get better about adding "-next" to the subject prefix to make it easier for maintainers but I do include the commit that the patch was based on at the bottom of the patch to accomplish the same thing.

Thank you for the review!