On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:19:23 +0100
Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> wrote:
> Hi Lukasz,
>
> Le 18/10/2011 16:25, Lukasz Majewski a écrit :
> > Volatile keyword removal from
> > ./arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski<l.majew...@samsung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park<kyungmin.p...@samsung.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h | 6 +++---
> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h
> > b/arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h index 879e20e..b00ae30 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h
> > @@ -25,11 +25,11 @@
> > /*
> > * Function prototypes to keep gcc -Wall happy.
> > */
> > -extern void set_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr);
> > +extern void set_bit(int nr, void *addr);
> >
> > -extern void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr);
> > +extern void clear_bit(int nr, void *addr);
> >
> > -extern void change_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr);
> > +extern void change_bit(int nr, void *addr);
> >
> > static inline void __change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
> > {
>
> Going through backlogged patches adelegated to me, I found this one.
> I'm fine with it, however I notice there is absolutely no call to
> set_bit, change_bit or clear_bit in the whole ARM subtree... What is
> the point of removing only the volatile qualifier vs removing the
> function definitions?
>
> Amicalement,
Hi Albert,
This patch was a supplement (to quiet compiler warnings) to the USB
gadget infrastructure.
But as we know, usb:gadget hasn't been added to the u-boot mainline.
However, I'm working on this, so I predict, that in the (near) future I
would need those changes to suppress compiler warnings :-).
For now, the commit can be discarded, I will resubmit it if needed.
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung Poland R&D Center
Platform Group
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
