[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Fix compile warning in amdgpu_fru_read_eeprom

[Christian König]

No, problem. I don't know this code but the patch looked kind of fishy :)

And yes that happens to all of us, that's why we do this review.

Christian.

Am 29.06.20 um 14:35 schrieb Russell, Kent:
> [AMD Public Use]
>
> Thanks for making me look at it critically (something I should do more after returning from 2 weeks vacation). Nirmoy fixed the issue by using a static define in his " drm/amdgpu: label internally used symbols as static" patch and I was just in autopilot trying to fix the Intel kbot error email that I received while away, not actually realizing that it was fixed and I was breaking and unbreaking it during rebasing. This thread can be ignored. Time for some coffee.
>
>   Kent
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig at amd.com>
>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 8:29 AM
>> To: Russell, Kent <Kent.Russell at amd.com>; amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Fix compile warning in
>> amdgpu_fru_read_eeprom
>>
>> Ok, then why does it fix a warning if we make it non-static?
>>
>> If the function used it compiled under some #ifdef then we should probably
>> just compile this under #ifdef as well.
>>
>> Christian.
>>
>> Am 29.06.20 um 14:20 schrieb Russell, Kent:
>>> [AMD Public Use]
>>>
>>> It's used repeatedly in the amdgpu_fru_get_product_info function, but only
>> in that function which is in the amdgpu_fru_eeprom.c file. While it could be
>> theoretically be used elsewhere, it isn't currently and any other usage would
>> be best contained in the amdgpu_fru_eeprom.c file.
>>>    Kent
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 8:17 AM
>>>> To: Russell, Kent <Kent.Russell at amd.com>;
>>>> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Fix compile warning in
>>>> amdgpu_fru_read_eeprom
>>>>
>>>> Am 29.06.20 um 14:13 schrieb Kent Russell:
>>>>> This fixes the missing-prototypes warning for the
>>>>> amdgpu_fru_read_eeprom function. Since we declare it in the header,
>>>>> we can make it un-static
>>>> Well is it used in different files? Otherwise we might just have
>>>> unused code in the module which can potentially raise a warning as well.
>>>>
>>>> Christian.
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kent Russell <kent.russell at amd.com>
>>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp at intel.com>
>>>>> Change-Id: I2b9419365cb8b38bcfb6582df53b96c83861d6cf
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.c | 2 +-
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.h | 2 ++
>>>>>     2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.c
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.c
>>>>> index e811fecc540f..68ed16e4d8be 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.c
>>>>> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static bool is_fru_eeprom_supported(struct
>>>> amdgpu_device *adev)
>>>>>     	return false;
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>> -static int amdgpu_fru_read_eeprom(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>>>> uint32_t addrptr,
>>>>> +int amdgpu_fru_read_eeprom(struct amdgpu_device *adev, uint32_t
>>>>> +addrptr,
>>>>>     			   unsigned char *buff)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>     	int ret, size;
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.h
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.h
>>>>> index f29a8611d69b..f4024f1d66c9 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fru_eeprom.h
>>>>> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
>>>>>     #ifndef __AMDGPU_FRU_EEPROM_H__
>>>>>     #define __AMDGPU_FRU_EEPROM_H__
>>>>>
>>>>> +int amdgpu_fru_read_eeprom(struct amdgpu_device *adev, uint32_t
>>>> addrptr,
>>>>> +                           unsigned char *buff);
>>>>>     int amdgpu_fru_get_product_info(struct amdgpu_device *adev);
>>>>>
>>>>>     #endif  // __AMDGPU_PRODINFO_H__