On 31-03-21, 09:41, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > On 3/31/21 2:21 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > We get warning for using a unsigned variable being compared to less than > > zero. The comparison is correct as it checks for errors from previous > > call to qcom_swrm_get_alert_slave_dev_num(), so we should use a signed > > variable instead. > > > > drivers/soundwire/qcom.c: qcom_swrm_irq_handler() warn: impossible > > condition '(devnum < 0) => (0-255 < 0)' > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/soundwire/qcom.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/qcom.c b/drivers/soundwire/qcom.c > > index b08ecb9b418c..55ed133c6704 100644 > > --- a/drivers/soundwire/qcom.c > > +++ b/drivers/soundwire/qcom.c > > @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ static irqreturn_t qcom_swrm_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id) > > struct qcom_swrm_ctrl *swrm = dev_id; > > u32 value, intr_sts, intr_sts_masked, slave_status; > > u32 i; > > - u8 devnum = 0; > > + s8 devnum = 0; > > it's not great to store negative error codes with s8. That works in this > specific case because the function only returns -EINVAL. Yeah I did check EINVAL was the case which would work but in general I agree that makes sense, I discussed with Srini on IRC and looks like I havent posted v2, should hit the pipes shortly -- ~Vinod
