[U-Boot] RFC: getramsize() prototype and volatile qualifier

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi all,

Call it a detail, but I see that get_ram_size() calls sometime qualify 
their argument as volatile and sometimes not, and this makes checkpatch 
complain that volatiles are Bad(tm), which I would like to get fixed.

The prototype for get_ram_size() in is

	long	get_ram_size  (volatile long *, long);

While I understand that the way get_ram_size() works, it needs to 
perform volatile *accesses* to addresses computed from its arguments, I 
don't see why it requires one of the arguments themselves to be volatile.

Am I missing something here, particularly about some toolchain requiring 
the argument to be volatile? I see no reason it should, but better safe 
than sorry.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.