Hello Sasha,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:46:50AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: yu kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [ Upstream commit 9871abffc81048e20f02e15d6aa4558a44ad53ea ]
>
> Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning:
>
> drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c: In function ‘pca9685_pwm_gpio_free’:
> drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c:162:21: warning: variable ‘pwm’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>
> It is never used, and so can be removed. In that case, hold and release
> the lock 'pca->lock' can be removed since nothing will be done between
> them.
>
> Fixes: e926b12c611c ("pwm: Clear chip_data in pwm_put()")
> Signed-off-by: yu kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
> index 168684b02ebce..b07bdca3d510d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
> @@ -159,13 +159,9 @@ static void pca9685_pwm_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset,
> static void pca9685_pwm_gpio_free(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset)
> {
> struct pca9685 *pca = gpiochip_get_data(gpio);
> - struct pwm_device *pwm;
>
> pca9685_pwm_gpio_set(gpio, offset, 0);
> pm_runtime_put(pca->chip.dev);
> - mutex_lock(&pca->lock);
> - pwm = &pca->chip.pwms[offset];
> - mutex_unlock(&pca->lock);
Even though I bet this change won't introduce a regression, it only
fixes a harmless warning. So I wonder if it objectively qualifies to be
applied for stable.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
