From: Viresh Kumar
> On 21 March 2014 16:34, Gautham R Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Heh! Well, that wasn't the reason why this was sent out as a separate
> > patch, but never mind. Though I don't understand why it would be
> > difficult to review the patch though.
>
> Because the initial driver wasn't complete earlier. There were 2-3 patches
> after the first one which are changing what the first patch has added.
> Nothing else :)
>
> >> > +static void powernv_read_cpu_freq(void *ret_freq)
> >> > +{
> >> > + unsigned long pmspr_val;
> >> > + s8 local_pstate_id;
> >> > + int *cur_freq, freq, pstate_id;
> >> > +
> >> > + cur_freq = (int *)ret_freq;
> >>
> >> You don't need cur_freq variable at all..
> >
> > I don't like it either. But the compiler complains without this hack
> > :-(
>
> Why would the compiler warn for doing this?:
>
> *(int *)ret_freq = freq;
Because it is very likely to be wrong.
In general casts of pointers to integer types are dangerous.
In this case why not make the function return the value?
David
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
