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