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