Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 01/20] sandbox: Add architecture header files
Dear Simon Glass,
In message <1318031631-13643-2-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you wrote:
> This adds required header files for the sandbox architecture, and a basic
> description of what sandbox is (README.sandbox).
>
> This commit generates a list of 44 checkpatch warnings:
This should go to the comment section. I don't want to see this as
part of the commit message.
> 0 errors, 44 warnings for 0001-sandbox-Add-architecture-header-files.patch:
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,30: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,32: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,34: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,36: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,44: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,54: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,66: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,76: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,88: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,90: Use of volatile is usually
> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>
> (These are the bitops and seem to have volatile in all the other archs also.)
Existence of bad code examples is no excuse for submitting new bad
code.
...
> +/*
> + * Function prototypes to keep gcc -Wall happy.
> + */
> +extern void set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr);
> +
> +extern void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr);
> +
> +extern void change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr);
I see no reason to accept these voplatiles here.
> +static inline void __change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
> +{
> + unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
> + unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
> +
> + *p ^= mask;
Please note that you actually even drop the volatile property in your
implementation.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity."
- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 01/20] sandbox: Add architecture header files
Hi Wolfgang,
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Simon Glass,
>
> In message <1318031631-13643-2-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you wrote:
>> This adds required header files for the sandbox architecture, and a basic
>> description of what sandbox is (README.sandbox).
>>
>> This commit generates a list of 44 checkpatch warnings:
>
> This should go to the comment section. I don't want to see this as
> part of the commit message.
Neither do I, but I guessed another patch version was coming. I will move it.
>
>> 0 errors, 44 warnings for 0001-sandbox-Add-architecture-header-files.patch:
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,30: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,32: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,34: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,36: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,44: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,54: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,66: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,76: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,88: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>> warning: arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,90: Use of volatile is usually
>> wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>>
>> (These are the bitops and seem to have volatile in all the other archs also.)
>
> Existence of bad code examples is no excuse for submitting new bad
> code.
OK. I will drop volatile from the patch. Are you OK with the other
checkpatch problems?
Regards,
Simon
>
> ...
>> +/*
>> + * Function prototypes to keep gcc -Wall happy.
>> + */
>> +extern void set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr);
>> +
>> +extern void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr);
>> +
>> +extern void change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr);
>
> I see no reason to accept these voplatiles here.
>
>> +static inline void __change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
>> + unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
>> +
>> + *p ^= mask;
>
> Please note that you actually even drop the volatile property in your
> implementation.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
> "There is no statute of limitations on stupidity."
> - Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.
>
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 01/20] sandbox: Add architecture header files
On Sunday 09 October 2011 15:28:16 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Simon Glass wrote: > > 0 errors, 44 warnings for > > 0001-sandbox-Add-architecture-header-files.patch: warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,30: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,32: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,34: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,36: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,44: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,54: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,66: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,76: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,88: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,90: Use of volatile is usually wrong: > > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt > > > > (These are the bitops and seem to have volatile in all the other archs > > also.) > > Existence of bad code examples is no excuse for submitting new bad > code. maybe we should take this up with LKML rather than forcing our code to randomly fork ... -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 01/20] sandbox: Add architecture header files
Hi, On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 09 October 2011 15:28:16 Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Simon Glass wrote: >> > 0 errors, 44 warnings for >> > 0001-sandbox-Add-architecture-header-files.patch: warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,30: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,32: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,34: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,36: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,44: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,54: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,66: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,76: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,88: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt warning: >> > arch/sandbox/include/asm/bitops.h,90: Use of volatile is usually wrong: >> > see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt >> > >> > (These are the bitops and seem to have volatile in all the other archs >> > also.) >> >> Existence of bad code examples is no excuse for submitting new bad >> code. > > maybe we should take this up with LKML rather than forcing our code to > randomly fork ... > -mike > Maybe, but I suspect they would take a patch, given that their own checkpatch complains about it. Regards, Simon ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
