On Tuesday 23 June 2015 02:16 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 07:26:25AM +0000, Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.) wrote: >> @@ -122,7 +121,7 @@ void setChipClock(unsigned int frequency) >> * Sometime, the chip cannot set up the exact clock required by User. >> * Return value from calcPllValue() gives the actual possible clock. >> */ >> - ulActualMxClk = calcPllValue(frequency, &pll); >> + calcPllValue(frequency, &pll); > > Should we get rid of calcPllValue() as well? I guess I would prefer to > leave the warnings until someone has the answer to this. > > Warnings are good because they show where the bugs are. It's not always > the right thing to silence them. > > regards, > dan carpenter > > Okay.Let us drop this patch and leave the warning as it is. Sudip,I saw your e-mail on the same topic. Thank you both for reviewing. -- thanks & regards, Hari Prasath _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
