Re: [PATCH] staging: sm750fb: Remove volatile

From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Aliya Rahmani <aliyarahmani786@gmail.com>
Cc: sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
	outreachy@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: sm750fb: Remove volatile
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:56:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YlfFhZ0o/FSzxOvE@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220413203914.59533-1-aliyarahmani786@gmail.com>

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@gmail.com>
> ---
>  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