drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static?
CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.o
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: error: no previous prototype for ‘i945gm_vblank_work_func’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
void i945gm_vblank_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
Jani wrote the idential patch, so for posterity:
The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit
08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to
sparse warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol
'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static?
Make the function static again.
Meanwhile, the 0-day kbuilder also spotted the mistake.
Fixes:
08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs")
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190626224212.10141-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190627091914.30795-1-jani.nikula@intel.com
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_priv->irq_lock, irqflags);
}
-void i945gm_vblank_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
+static void i945gm_vblank_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =
container_of(work, struct drm_i915_private, i945gm_vblank.work);