[PATCH 04/18] ARM: at91: make ST (System Timer) soc independent

[rmallon@gmail.com (Ryan Mallon)]

On 20/02/12 14:02, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:

> On 12:52 Mon 20 Feb     , Ryan Mallon wrote:
>> On 20/02/12 12:38, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>>
>>> On 11:22 Mon 20 Feb     , Ryan Mallon wrote:
>>>> On 18/02/12 04:49, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c              |    4 +-
>>>>>  arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200_time.c         |   37 ++++++++++++++++----------
>>>>>  arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h                 |    1 +
>>>>>  arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_st.h    |   32 +++++++++++++++-------
>>>>>  arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91rm9200.h |    2 +-
>>>>>  drivers/watchdog/at91rm9200_wdt.c            |    8 +++---
>>>>>  6 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jean, Nicolas,
>>>>
>>>> Patch looks mostly good, couple of points below.
>>>>
>>>> ~Ryan
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>  	/* Cancel any pending alarm; flush any pending IRQ */
>>>>> -	at91_sys_write(AT91_ST_RTAR, alm);
>>>>> -	(void) at91_sys_read(AT91_ST_SR);
>>>>> +	at91_st_write(AT91_ST_RTAR, alm);
>>>>> +	(void) at91_st_read(AT91_ST_SR);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can we please remove the (void) casting of the return value when making
>>>> this change, especially since at91_st_read is now a macro which doesn't
>>>> even have a return value. Same in a few other places.
>>> modification done by script and it's no the scope of this patch
>>
>>
>> That isn't an excuse to leave incorrect code there. It is a simple fix.
> no (void) in c means you don't care of the return so basically it's right


Because of the way the __raw_writel is defined you are casting the
result of an assignment, basically you are doing this:

   int foo, bar;

  (void)(foo = bar);

Which is pointless. Don't make excuses for silly, redundant code. Fix
it, please.

~Ryan