Hi,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 01:37:41PM +0530, Varadarajan, Charulatha wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:01, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Fix the following compile warning:
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c: In function '_get_div_and_fieldval':
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c:100:35: warning: 'max_clkr' may be
> > used uninitialized in this function
> >
> > While at that, also add a check to avoid using max_clkr while NULL.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c
> > index a781cd6..baf0b6b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c
> > @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static u8 _get_div_and_fieldval(struct clk *src_clk, struct clk *clk,
> > u32 *field_val)
> > {
> > const struct clksel *clks;
> > - const struct clksel_rate *clkr, *max_clkr;
> > + const struct clksel_rate *clkr, *max_clkr = NULL;
> > u8 max_div = 0;
> >
> > clks = _get_clksel_by_parent(clk, src_clk);
> > @@ -123,6 +123,9 @@ static u8 _get_div_and_fieldval(struct clk *src_clk, struct clk *clk,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + if (!max_clkr)
> > + return 0;
>
> Would it be more appropriate to move this check after the "if" check
> of max_div==0 and it's warning?
> or add a warning before it returns?
Maybe this return isn't even necessary. max_clkr will be true if max_div
is valid, so they cancel each other.
Tony ?
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
