Skip to contentSkip to conversation

drm/i915: add prototype for 'intelfb_panic' to header file

PATCH In review Hannes Eder 2 participants 3 messages Dec 18, 2008 – Dec 19, 2008

Subsystems (3)
DRM drivers Intel i915 Kernel janitors
lore
Share & tools
lore

Hannes Eder

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 6/6 drm/i915: add prototype for 'intelfb_panic' to header file

Fix this sparse warning:

drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fb.c:417:5: warning: symbol 'intelfb_panic' was not declared. Should it be static?

Signed-off-by Hannes Eder <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h +2 -0
index 407edd5..b8ae5ce 100644
@@ -135,6 +135,8 @@ extern void intel_sdvo_set_hotplug(struct drm_connector *connector, int enable);
 extern int intelfb_probe(struct drm_device *dev);
 extern int intelfb_remove(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_framebuffer *fb);
 extern int intelfb_resize(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_crtc *crtc);
+extern int intelfb_panic(struct notifier_block *n, unsigned long ununsed,
+			 void *panic_str);
 extern void intelfb_restore(void);
 extern void intel_crtc_fb_gamma_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc, u16 red, u16 green,
 				    u16 blue, int regno);
Signature · 1 line
1.5.6.3
#1 lore raw
Quoted 4 lines · Hannes Eder

Fix this sparse warning:

drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fb.c:417:5: warning: symbol 'intelfb_panic'
was not declared. Should it be static?

Yep, this one should be static instead (I think, just double checking now to make sure it's not used elsewhere, iirc it's not).

Signature · 1 line
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
author
#2 lore raw

PATCH v2 6/6 drm/i915: un-EXPORT and make 'intelfb_panic' static

Fix this sparse warning:

drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fb.c:417:5: warning: symbol 'intelfb_panic' was not declared. Should it be static?

Signed-off-by Hannes Eder <[email protected]>

---

Quoted 8 lines · Jesse Barnes
Quoted 4 lines · Hannes Eder

Fix this sparse warning:

drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fb.c:417:5: warning: symbol 'intelfb_panic'
was not declared. Should it be static?

Yep, this one should be static instead (I think, just double checking now to make sure it's not used elsewhere, iirc it's not).

Ok, so let's make the function static and there is no need to EXPORT it, which wouldn't work for a static function anyway.

When is it safe to un-EXPORT a function? When it is only referenced within the translation unit it is defined in? But it could be referenced from outside the kernel source, or?

 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fb.c |    5 ++---
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fb.c +2 -3
index 12664c3..bbf6fe0 100644
@@ -414,15 +414,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(intelfb_resize);
 
 static struct drm_mode_set kernelfb_mode;
 
-int intelfb_panic(struct notifier_block *n, unsigned long ununsed,
-		  void *panic_str)
+static int intelfb_panic(struct notifier_block *n, unsigned long ununsed,
+			 void *panic_str)
 {
 	DRM_ERROR("panic occurred, switching back to text console\n");
 
 	intelfb_restore();
 	return 0;
 }
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(intelfb_panic);
 
 static struct notifier_block paniced = {
 	.notifier_call = intelfb_panic,
Signature · 1 line
1.5.6.3