On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 06:40:14PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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.
See my response to another one of these types of patches. In order
words, I agree, these aren't needed unless they are prereqs for other
real fixes.
thanks,
greg k-h
