[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915: keep declarations in i915_drv.h

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:58:20PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:57:06AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >> > On to, 2016-09-15 at 16:28 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >> >> Fix sparse warnings:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:1179:5: warning: symbol
>> >> >> 'i915_driver_load' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:1267:6: warning: symbol
>> >> >> 'i915_driver_unload' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c:2444:25: warning: symbol 'i915_pm_ops'
>> >> >> was not declared. Should it be static?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> > Hmm, Chris, were not these change in the middle of a series, did the
>> >> > cleanup patches just fall off?
>> >> 
>> >> Can we just please use whichever patches that fix the issue?
>> >
>> > It was deliberate placement to avoid having those symbols exposed to
>> > every user of i915_drv.h, i.e. everyone. Limit i915_drv.h to the
>> > interface exposed by i915_drv.c and so used only by a handful of files.
>> 
>> I can see that, but I prefer to get the warnings gone.
>
> Yeah, non-static declarations need to be in header files, otherwise
> there's not much point in them really (since the compiler can't compare
> the delcaration with the definition).
>
> we also need to split up our headers I think, and I plan to start doing
> that when extracting bits and pieces from intel_display.c. In drm core at
> least having 1:1 between headers and source files seems to work rather
> well.
>
> Meanwhile on Jani's patch:
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>

Thanks, pushed to dinq.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center