On 02/10/2019 14:29, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:25:06PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:08:44AM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Variable pval is being assigned a value that is never read. The
>>> assignment is redundant and hence can be removed.
>>>
>>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c | 1 -
>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c
>>> index 6f5840a1a82d..53970d4ba695 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c
>>> @@ -156,7 +156,6 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_calculate(struct sun4i_pwm_chip *sun4i_pwm,
>>> if (sun4i_pwm->data->has_prescaler_bypass) {
>>> /* First, test without any prescaler when available */
>>> prescaler = PWM_PRESCAL_MASK;
>>> - pval = 1;
>>> /*
>>> * When not using any prescaler, the clock period in nanoseconds
>>> * is not an integer so round it half up instead of
>>
>> Are you sure? It looks used to me.
>
> Ah. Never mind. My tree was out of date.
No problem. I appreciated you eyeballing my fixes.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
