Skip to content

OMAP: TWL: sparse fixes

Nishanth Menon linux-arm-kernel linux-omap 1 version New

Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]

Versions newest first

  1. v1 Latest0 of 2 patches 0 repliesNew

Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet

None of the 2 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.

Reviews trailers per patch

No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.

Read the v1 thread

Cover letter [PATCH 0/2] OMAP: TWL: sparse fixes

Russell King - ARM Linux wrote, on 01/04/2011 06:25 PM:

Quoted 17 lines · Nishanth Menon
Quoted 12 lines

hmm.. minor nit (with codesourcery 2010.09-50 - 4.5.1):
rm arch/arm/mach-omap2/*.o;make C=1 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr;make C=2 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr1;diff Kerr Kerr1
[..]
1,4d0
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c: In function 'omap_mux_get_by_name':
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c:163:17: warning: 'found_mode' may be used uninitialized in this function
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c: In function 'omap2_clksel_set_parent':
< arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c:100:35: warning: 'max_clkr' may be used uninitialized in this function

Quoted 3 lines

Kinda interesting to note that C=2 does'nt list all potential gcc warnings :( if one wanted a collated list of all warnings, rm .../*.o helps I guess.

Quoted 6 lines

C=2 only runs sparse - so if you're committing patches to fix sparse warnings, that's what you should be interested in.

I'd suggest that fixing sparse warnings and GCC warnings in a single patch is probably not the best thing to do - GCC warnings are less subjective than sparse warnings.

I agree.

Signature · 2 lines
Regards,
Nishanth Menon

Read the cover letter in its thread