Skip to contentSkip to conversation

staging: vt6655: remove unnecessary type cast

PATCH In review Nam Cao 2 participants 3 messages May 28, 2022 – May 30, 2022 Staging

lore
Share & tools
lore

Nam Cao

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 staging: vt6655: remove unnecessary type cast

Remove le64_to_cpu(), as the type is already u64, as reported by sparse:
drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c:758:16: warning: cast to restricted __le64

---
 drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c +1 -1
index 2cde0082fc03..852300c59980 100644
@@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ u64 vt6655_get_current_tsf(struct vnt_private *priv)
 		return 0;
 	low = ioread32(iobase + MAC_REG_TSFCNTR);
 	high = ioread32(iobase + MAC_REG_TSFCNTR + 4);
-	return le64_to_cpu(low + ((u64)high << 32));
+	return low + ((u64)high << 32);
 }
 
 /*
Signature · 1 line
2.25.1
#1 lore raw

This is not the correct subject. The le64_to_cpu() is not a decorative feature which can be added or removed without affecting functionality. This patch either fixes a bug or it introduces a bug.

Quoted 13 lines · Nam Cao

Remove le64_to_cpu(), as the type is already u64, as reported by sparse:
drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c:758:16: warning: cast to restricted __le64

---
 drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c +0 -0
index 2cde0082fc03..852300c59980 100644

drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c u64 vt6655_get_current_tsf(struct vnt_private *priv) · line 758

Quoted 5 lines
drivers/staging/vt6655/card.c +1 -1
@@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ u64 vt6655_get_current_tsf(struct vnt_private *priv)
 		return 0;
 	low = ioread32(iobase + MAC_REG_TSFCNTR);
 	high = ioread32(iobase + MAC_REG_TSFCNTR + 4);
-	return le64_to_cpu(low + ((u64)high << 32));
+	return low + ((u64)high << 32);

I fee like the original code would have been more readable if it were written as:

	return le64_to_cpu(((u64)high << 32) | low);

This seems like a correct way to combine two halves of a le64 value. So the original code looks correct and the patch introduces a bug.

regards,
dan carpenter

author
#2 lore raw

Yes, this patch is a mistake. I clarified that but I think my email got blocked because it's html.

Sorry for wasting your time.

Best regards,
Nam