[U-Boot] RFC: getramsize() prototype and volatile qualifier

2011-04-21 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Hi all, Call it a detail, but I see that get_ram_size() calls sometime qualify their argument as volatile and sometimes not, and this makes checkpatch complain that volatiles are Bad(tm), which I would like to get fixed. The prototype for get_ram_size() in is longget_ram_size

Re: [U-Boot] RFC: getramsize() prototype and volatile qualifier

2011-04-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: Call it a detail, but I see that get_ram_size() calls sometime qualify their argument as volatile and sometimes not, and this makes checkpatch complain that volatiles are Bad(tm), which I would like to get fixed. The prototype for

Re: [U-Boot] RFC: getramsize() prototype and volatile qualifier

2011-04-21 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Le 21/04/2011 19:02, Mike Frysinger a écrit : On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: Call it a detail, but I see that get_ram_size() calls sometime qualify their argument as volatile and sometimes not, and this makes checkpatch complain that volatiles are Bad(tm), which I would

Re: [U-Boot] RFC: getramsize() prototype and volatile qualifier

2011-04-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: Le 21/04/2011 19:02, Mike Frysinger a écrit : On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: Call it a detail, but I see that get_ram_size() calls sometime qualify their argument as volatile and sometimes not, and this makes

Re: [U-Boot] RFC: getramsize() prototype and volatile qualifier

2011-04-21 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Le 22/04/2011 00:28, Mike Frysinger a écrit : On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: Le 21/04/2011 19:02, Mike Frysinger a écrit : On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: Call it a detail, but I see that get_ram_size() calls sometime qualify their argument as