On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:01:07PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Viresh Kumar > > > On 21 March 2014 16:34, Gautham R Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Heh! Well, that wasn't the reason why this was sent out as a separate > > > patch, but never mind. Though I don't understand why it would be > > > difficult to review the patch though. > > > > Because the initial driver wasn't complete earlier. There were 2-3 patches > > after the first one which are changing what the first patch has added. > > Nothing else :) > > > > >> > +static void powernv_read_cpu_freq(void *ret_freq) > > >> > +{ > > >> > + unsigned long pmspr_val; > > >> > + s8 local_pstate_id; > > >> > + int *cur_freq, freq, pstate_id; > > >> > + > > >> > + cur_freq = (int *)ret_freq; > > >> > > >> You don't need cur_freq variable at all.. > > > > > > I don't like it either. But the compiler complains without this hack > > > :-( > > > > Why would the compiler warn for doing this?: > > > > *(int *)ret_freq = freq; > > Because it is very likely to be wrong. > In general casts of pointers to integer types are dangerous. > In this case why not make the function return the value?
Because this function is called via an smp_call_function(). And we need a way of returning the value to the caller. > > David > > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev