[00/13] Rid W=1 warnings in CPUFreq

Message ID 20200714145049.2496163-1-lee.jones@linaro.org
Headers show
Series
  • Rid W=1 warnings in CPUFreq
Related show

Message

Lee Jones July 14, 2020, 2:50 p.m.
This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
niggly little warnings.

After these patches are applied, the build system no longer
complains about any W=0 nor W=1 level warnings in drivers/cpufreq.

Hurrah!

Lee Jones (13):
  cpufreq: freq_table: Demote obvious misuse of kerneldoc to standard
    comment blocks
  cpufreq: cpufreq: Demote lots of function headers unworthy of
    kerneldoc status
  cpufreq: cpufreq_governor: Demote store_sampling_rate() header to
    standard comment block
  cpufreq: sti-cpufreq: Fix some formatting and misspelling issues
  cpufreq/arch: powerpc: pasemi: Move prototypes to shared header
  cpufreq: powernv-cpufreq: Functions only used in call-backs should be
    static
  cpufreq: powernv-cpufreq: Fix a bunch of kerneldoc related issues
  cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Take 'dummy' principle one stage further
  cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Remove unused ID structs
  cpufreq: powernow-k8: Make use of known set but not used variables
  cpufreq: pcc-cpufreq: Remove unused ID structs
  cpufreq: intel_pstate: Supply struct attribute description for
    get_aperf_mperf_shift()
  cpufreq: amd_freq_sensitivity: Remove unused ID structs

 arch/powerpc/platforms/pasemi/pasemi.h    | 15 -----------
 arch/powerpc/platforms/pasemi/powersave.S |  2 ++
 drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c            | 16 ++----------
 drivers/cpufreq/amd_freq_sensitivity.c    |  6 -----
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c                 | 32 ++++++++++++-----------
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c        |  2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c              |  6 ++---
 drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c            |  2 ++
 drivers/cpufreq/pasemi-cpufreq.c          |  1 +
 drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c             |  7 -----
 drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c             |  2 ++
 drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c         | 15 ++++++-----
 drivers/cpufreq/sti-cpufreq.c             |  8 +++---
 include/linux/platform_data/pasemi.h      | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++
 14 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 include/linux/platform_data/pasemi.h

-- 
2.25.1

Comments

Viresh Kumar July 15, 2020, 3:36 a.m. | #1
On 14-07-20, 15:50, Lee Jones wrote:
> This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1

> kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with

> niggly little warnings.

> 

> After these patches are applied, the build system no longer

> complains about any W=0 nor W=1 level warnings in drivers/cpufreq.


And you need to rebase this stuff of pm/linux-next, as there are some
changes in cpufreq.c there.

-- 
viresh
Lee Jones July 15, 2020, 6:32 a.m. | #2
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> On 14-07-20, 15:50, Lee Jones wrote:

> > This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1

> > kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with

> > niggly little warnings.

> > 

> > After these patches are applied, the build system no longer

> > complains about any W=0 nor W=1 level warnings in drivers/cpufreq.

> 

> And you need to rebase this stuff of pm/linux-next, as there are some

> changes in cpufreq.c there.


It's based on the latest -next.  Is pm/linux-next in -next?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Viresh Kumar July 15, 2020, 6:38 a.m. | #3
On 15-07-20, 07:32, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> 

> > On 14-07-20, 15:50, Lee Jones wrote:

> > > This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1

> > > kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with

> > > niggly little warnings.

> > > 

> > > After these patches are applied, the build system no longer

> > > complains about any W=0 nor W=1 level warnings in drivers/cpufreq.

> > 

> > And you need to rebase this stuff of pm/linux-next, as there are some

> > changes in cpufreq.c there.

> 

> It's based on the latest -next.  Is pm/linux-next in -next?


Yes it is. Actually my bad, I based it on my next which didn't had
pm/linux-next :)

-- 
viresh
Lee Jones July 15, 2020, 7:34 a.m. | #4
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> On 15-07-20, 07:32, Lee Jones wrote:

> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> > 

> > > On 14-07-20, 15:50, Lee Jones wrote:

> > > > This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1

> > > > kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with

> > > > niggly little warnings.

> > > > 

> > > > After these patches are applied, the build system no longer

> > > > complains about any W=0 nor W=1 level warnings in drivers/cpufreq.

> > > 

> > > And you need to rebase this stuff of pm/linux-next, as there are some

> > > changes in cpufreq.c there.

> > 

> > It's based on the latest -next.  Is pm/linux-next in -next?

> 

> Yes it is. Actually my bad, I based it on my next which didn't had

> pm/linux-next :)


No problem.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog