On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:46:13AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 07:26:25AM +0000, Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.) > wrote: > > @@ -122,7 +121,7 @@ void setChipClock(unsigned int frequency) > > * Sometime, the chip cannot set up the exact clock required by > > User. > > * Return value from calcPllValue() gives the actual possible > > clock. > > */ > > - ulActualMxClk = calcPllValue(frequency, &pll); > > + calcPllValue(frequency, &pll); > > Should we get rid of calcPllValue() as well? I guess I would prefer to > leave the warnings until someone has the answer to this. > > Warnings are good because they show where the bugs are. It's not always > the right thing to silence them. I think it should be kept, atleast for now. some members of pll are modified in the function.
regards sudip _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
