On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:26 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 02:09:15AM +0530, Aliya Rahmani wrote:
> > Remove volatile to fix checkpatch.pl warning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aliya Rahmani <aliyarahmani786@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h
> > index aff69661c8e6..7a11f8593596 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h
> > @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ struct lynx_accel {
> > /* base virtual address of DPR registers */
> > volatile unsigned char __iomem *dprBase;
> > /* base virtual address of de data port */
> > - volatile unsigned char __iomem *dpPortBase;
> > + unsigned char __iomem *dpPortBase;
>
> So you have properly determined that this code is now fixed and does not
> require this volatile marking? :)
>
> Please don't blindly follow checkpatch suggestions without understanding
> what they do. While the use of volatile is probably wrong here, you
> need to ensure that you can successfully remove this so you need to
> prove it in the changelog text that all is still ok.
>
> Also, why did you only remove one?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
My apologies, I'll verify and understand the code before following
checkpatch suggestions.
Thanks,
Aliya
