Am 05.12.2019 08:24, schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> The variable pval is only used in a single block in the function
> sun4i_pwm_calculate(). So declare it in a more local scope to simplify
> the function for humans and compilers.
>
> While the diffstat for this patch is negative for this patch I still
> thing the advantage of having a narrower scope is beneficial.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Hello,
>
> for the patch that became
>
> 1b98ad3b3be9 ("pwm: sun4i: Drop redundant assignment to variable pval")
>
> (and which yielded the situation that pval is only used in this single
> block) I suggested to do this change. This was ignored however by both
> Colin and Thierry without comment. So I suggest the change here
> separately.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c
> index 581d23287333..8919e6ab7577 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c
> @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_calculate(struct sun4i_pwm_chip *sun4i_pwm,
> u32 *dty, u32 *prd, unsigned int *prsclr)
> {
> u64 clk_rate, div = 0;
> - unsigned int pval, prescaler = 0;
> + unsigned int prescaler = 0;
>
> clk_rate = clk_get_rate(sun4i_pwm->clk);
>
> @@ -170,6 +170,8 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_calculate(struct sun4i_pwm_chip *sun4i_pwm,
> if (prescaler == 0) {
> /* Go up from the first divider */
> for (prescaler = 0; prescaler < PWM_PRESCAL_MASK; prescaler++) {
> + unsigned int pval;
> +
> if (!prescaler_table[prescaler])
> continue;
> pval = prescaler_table[prescaler];
nit picking:
Doing the assignment first would remove the only use
of prescaler_table[prescaler].
unsigned int pval = prescaler_table[prescaler];
if ( ! pval )
continue;
if you feel adventures you could also replace the for() for a while()
since we know that prescaler == 0.
while ( prescaler < PWM_PRESCAL_MASK )
{
unsigned int pval = prescaler_table[prescaler++];
....
jm2c,
wh
