Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
The warnings are harmless but annoying. Let's fix them.
If the warnings are "harmless", why are you "fixing them"?
The compiler has switches to turn off warnings, if they annoy you too much.
Does this refactoring of the code do something more than just avoid a warning or two? If not, I would reject it.
Signed-off-by: Haavard Skinnemoen haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com
cpu/at32ap/atmel_mci.c | 6 ++++-- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpu/at32ap/atmel_mci.c b/cpu/at32ap/atmel_mci.c index f59dfb5..3ce9ea5 100644 --- a/cpu/at32ap/atmel_mci.c +++ b/cpu/at32ap/atmel_mci.c @@ -182,12 +182,13 @@ static int mmc_acmd(unsigned long cmd, unsigned long arg,
static unsigned long mmc_bread(int dev, unsigned long start, lbaint_t blkcnt,
unsigned long *buffer)
void *buffer){ int ret, i = 0; unsigned long resp[4]; unsigned long card_status, data; unsigned long wordcount;
u32 *p = buffer; u32 status;
if (blkcnt == 0)
@@ -225,7 +226,7 @@ mmc_bread(int dev, unsigned long start, lbaint_t blkcnt, if (status & MMCI_BIT(RXRDY)) { data = mmci_readl(RDR); /* pr_debug("%x\n", data); */
*buffer++ = data;
*p++ = data; wordcount++; }@@ -443,6 +444,7 @@ static void mci_set_data_timeout(struct mmc_csd *csd)
dtocyc = timeout_clks; dtomul = 0;
- shift = 0; while (dtocyc > 15 && dtomul < 8) { dtomul++; shift = dtomul_to_shift[dtomul];
-- 1.5.5.1
Sincerely,
Ken Fuchs