Dear Simon Glass,
In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
> This adds required header files for the sandbox architecture, and a basic
> description of what sandbox is (README.sandbox).
>
> This commit generates a list of 44 checkpatch warnings:
This should go to the comment section. I don't want to see this as
part of the commit message.
> 0 errors, 44 warnings for 0001-sandbox-Add-architecture-header-files.patch:
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,30: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,32: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,34: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,36: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,44: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,54: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,66: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,76: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,88: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,90: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>
> (These are the bitops and seem to have volatile in all the other archs also.)
Existence of bad code examples is no excuse for submitting new bad
code.
...
> +/*
> + * Function prototypes to keep gcc -Wall happy.
> + */
> +extern void set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr);
> +
> +extern void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr);
> +
> +extern void change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr);
I see no reason to accept these voplatiles here.
> +static inline void __change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
> +{
> + unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
> + unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
> +
> + *p ^= mask;
Please note that you actually even drop the volatile property in your
implementation.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected]
"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity."
- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
