On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:59:27PM +0300, Dorcas Litunya wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 02:06:41PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Dorcas AnonoLitunya wrote:
> >
> > > Modifies the return type of program_mode_registers()
> > > to void from int as the return value is being ignored in
> > > all subsequent function calls.
> > >
> > > This improves code readability and maintainability.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dorcas AnonoLitunya <anonolitunya@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c | 5 ++---
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > index 83ace6cc9583..e15039238232 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ display_control_adjust_sm750le(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* only timing related registers will be programed */
> > > -static int program_mode_registers(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > > - struct pll_value *pll)
> > > +static void program_mode_registers(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > > + struct pll_value *pll)
> > > {
> > > int ret = 0;
> > > int cnt = 0;
> > > @@ -202,7 +202,6 @@ static int program_mode_registers(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > > } else {
> > > ret = -1;
> >
> > Is it still useful to have ret = -1? Maybe the ret variable is not useful
> > at all any more, but one would have to check the parts of the function
> > that aren't shown.
> >
> I agree Julia. I will remove the setting part for ret = -1 but keep the
> ret variable just in case it is being used by parts of the function not
> shown.
No, don't do that, you will trip other static checkers if you do so.
Remove it entirely as it is obviously not needed anymore.
thanks,
greg k-h
