On 1/4/22 3:28 AM, cgel.zte@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Return value from inb_p() directly instead
of taking this in another redundant variable.
Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: CGEL ZTE <cgel.zte@xxxxxxxxx>
Please do not send me such patches. The subject starts with the wrong tag
(it should have been "hwmon: (nct6683)", it is misleading (the variable is
not redundant; if anything it is unnecessary), and the patch itself adds
zero value. The submitter may have had a reason for using a variable,
may it be personal style or ease of adding a debug statement when testing.
There is no valid reason for changing such code.
Guenter
---
drivers/hwmon/nct6683.c | 5 +----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/nct6683.c b/drivers/hwmon/nct6683.c
index 6a9f420e7d32..ab02e967f73d 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/nct6683.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/nct6683.c
@@ -495,13 +495,10 @@ static inline long in_from_reg(u16 reg, u8 src)
static u16 nct6683_read(struct nct6683_data *data, u16 reg)
{
- int res;
-
outb_p(0xff, data->addr + EC_PAGE_REG); /* unlock */
outb_p(reg >> 8, data->addr + EC_PAGE_REG);
outb_p(reg & 0xff, data->addr + EC_INDEX_REG);
- res = inb_p(data->addr + EC_DATA_REG);
- return res;
+ return inb_p(data->addr + EC_DATA_REG);
}
static u16 nct6683_read16(struct nct6683_data *data, u16 reg)
