[PATCH] drm/rockchip: include rockchip_drm_drv.h

[Andy Yan]

Hi ，
At 2024-09-07 16:47:18, "Diederik de Haas" <didi.debian at cknow.org> wrote:
>On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 5:02 AM CEST, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
>> >FWIW: I didn't see it either, but I assumed I was missing the right
>> >context (i.e. patches) needed to trigger that warning.
>>
>> I triggered the warning by the following step:
>>
>> install 'sparse' first
>>
>> ARCH=arm64 LLVM=1 make C=1 CF='-fdiagnostic-prefix -D__CHECK_ENDIAN__' mrproper defconfig all -j8
>
>This, especially the 'LLVM' part,  is important context information
>and should be part of the commit message.
>
>I had only just started when I saw a number of sparse warnings:
>
>  DTC     arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-edgeble-neu6a-io.dtb
>  OVL     arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-evm.dtb
>  OVL     arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721s2-evm.dtb
>  OVL     arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-idk.dtb
>  DTC     arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r3-kb.dtb
>  DTC     arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-edgeble-neu6a-wifi.dtbo
>  DTC     arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r3-lte.dtb
>  DTC     arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-edgeble-neu6b-io.dtb
>  DTC     arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-evb1-v10.dtb
>  DTC     arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r9.dtb
>../init/main.c:192:12: sparse: warning: symbol 'envp_init' was not declared. Should it be static?
>../init/main.c:290:16: sparse: warning: cast to restricted __le32
>../init/main.c:291:16: sparse: warning: cast to restricted __le32
>  CHECK   ../init/do_mounts.c

>


I can see same warnings， a lots of。
And also see the warning in vop2：
drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_vop2_reg.c:502:24: sparse: warning: symbol 'vop2_platform_driver' was not declared. Should it be static?


Min Hua，If you are agree，I will split it from my patch， and add a Fix tag ，and also add a SoB of you， Then resend in My V3 series，this
will make my patch series easier。
 >And several followed, including in c-code files. So I stopped the build
>and assume you've identified a or several actual issues.
>
>I've seen several commits where changes were made because LLVM flagged
>potentially problematic code, where GCC did not, so it's quite possible
>you're on to something here.
>
>But it would be helpful if the commit message said what code was
>potentially problematic and why. And then the proper fix for that could
>indeed be to include `rockchip_drm_drv.h`.
>
>Cheers,
>  Diederik