From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:11:14 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] Checkpatch warnings for "volatile"
In-Reply-To: <20111015085654.6921D1408743@gemini.denx.de>
References: <CA+V-a8sqFOv7FcEoLrL9VXWzUvT+04=4W-G8S=83xJ8KK_PEPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+V-a8sYRZJDZojEpQ55ZGRZ6--Niq0ThKVV8e_RtQrRuShE8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111015085654.6921D1408743@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <201110152011.14163.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:56:54 AM Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Prabhakar Lad,
> 
> In message <CA+V-a8sYRZJDZojEpQ55ZGRZ6--
Niq0ThKVV8e_RtQrRuShE8A@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > > I've explained this a number of times recently - there are actually
> > > very, very few occasions where "volatile" actually makes sense.
> > > 
> > >      Agreed, but I see a piece of code where virtual address are
> > >      compared.
> >      
> >      For example in arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/davinci/cpu.c
> >      In this function static inline unsigned pll_prediv(unsigned pllbase)
> > 
> > and
> > 
> >      also in this static inline unsigned pll_postdiv(unsigned pllbase)
> >      
> >      Any suggestion on this on how to tackle or let it remain stagnant?
> 
> I cannot see a justification for any of the ""volatile" in this file.
> 
> Of course, all these ugly REG() calls should be converted to proper
> use of I/O accessors.

Definitelly ... but I'm not swiping this one, I have enough mess on my hands 
already ;-)

Cheers