[PATCH r2 0/7] STAGING: cxt1e1: Remove sparse warnings and resolve checkpatch issues

[Michael Welling]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 08:58:21AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 09:01:48AM -0500, Michael Welling wrote:
> > This patch series resolves the following sparse warnings:
> > 
> >   CHECK   drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:158:1: warning: symbol 'eeprom_put_byte' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:183:1: warning: symbol 'eeprom_get_byte' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:256:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_eeprom_read' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:296:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_eeprom_write' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:364:1: warning: symbol 'pmcGetBuffValue' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:385:1: warning: symbol 'pmcSetBuffValue' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:403:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_eeprom_read_buffer' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:416:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_eeprom_write_buffer' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:433:1: warning: symbol 'pmcCalcCrc_T01' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:452:1: warning: symbol 'pmcCalcCrc_T02' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:489:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_init_seeprom' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > drivers/staging/cxt1e1/pmc93x6_eeprom.c:521:1: warning: symbol 'pmc_verify_cksum' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > 
> > Also incorporates many indentation and coding style fixes as well as
> > the removal of a volatile variable.
> 
> Hm, all 7 patches have the same exact subject: line, which isn't good,
> as they can't be told apart when looking at the git log :(
> 
> Can you fix this up and use unique Subject: lines?
Wow I am on a roll here.

Lets try it again.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h