[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVCyO5JUpMExBK0OgoGfe0MYhP4WcOfrwqQkbb7FUsrxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 14:38:49 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Minjie Du <duminjie@...o.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"open list:M68K ARCHITECTURE" <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
opensource.kernel@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] m68k: apollo: Remove a duplicate assignment in dn_timer_int
Hi Minjie,
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 2:13 PM Minjie Du <duminjie@...o.com> wrote:
> Delete a duplicate statement from this function implementation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Minjie Du <duminjie@...o.com>
Thanks for your patch, which is presumably untested on real hardware?
> --- a/arch/m68k/apollo/config.c
> +++ b/arch/m68k/apollo/config.c
> @@ -173,7 +173,6 @@ irqreturn_t dn_timer_int(int irq, void *dev_id)
> legacy_timer_tick(1);
> timer_heartbeat();
>
> - x = *(volatile unsigned char *)(apollo_timer + 3);
> x = *(volatile unsigned char *)(apollo_timer + 5);
This is intentional: the use of volatile makes sure the registers at
offsets 3 and 5 are read, in that order.
I agree this could be made more obvious by converting the code to the
more modern READ_ONCE() helper.
But please do not send such a patch without testing.
>
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
NAKed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists