Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: rtl8723bs: Optimize variable initialization in rtl8723b_hal_init.c

[Erick Karanja <karanja99erick@gmail.com>]

On Sat, 2025-04-05 at 10:28 -0400, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> > On 5 Apr 2025, at 10:19, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 06:14:48AM +0300, Erick Karanja wrote:
> > > Optimize variable initialization by integrating the
> > > initialization
> > > directly into the variable declaration in cases where the
> > > initialization
> > > is simple and doesn't depend on other variables or complex
> > > expressions.
> > > This makes the code more concise and readable.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Erick Karanja <karanja99erick@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > .../staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c | 155 +++++--------
> > > -----
> > > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 114 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c
> > > b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c
> > > index e15ec6452fd0..1e980b291e90 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c
> > > @@ -152,13 +152,12 @@ static int _WriteFW(struct adapter
> > > *padapter, void *buffer, u32 size)
> > > void _8051Reset8723(struct adapter *padapter)
> > > {
> > >    u8 cpu_rst;
> > > -    u8 io_rst;
> > > +    u8 io_rst = rtw_read8(padapter, REG_RSV_CTRL + 1);
> > > 
> > > 
> > >    /*  Reset 8051(WLMCU) IO wrapper */
> > >    /*  0x1c[8] = 0 */
> > >    /*  Suggested by Isaac@SD1 and Gimmy@SD1, coding by
> > > Lucas@20130624 */
> > > -    io_rst = rtw_read8(padapter, REG_RSV_CTRL+1);
> > >    io_rst &= ~BIT(0);
> > >    rtw_write8(padapter, REG_RSV_CTRL+1, io_rst);
> > 
> > I hate this.  It's a bad idea to put "code" in the declaration
> > block.
> 
> Erick, you can look around in the output of the semantic patch and
> see if all of the ones with function calls are undesirable. If that’s
> the case you can post to the outreachy mailing list a revised
> semantic patch that doesn’t report on that case.
Thanks Julia I will look at it.
> 
> Julia
> 
> > > @@ -501,8 +499,7 @@ void Hal_GetEfuseDefinition(
> > >    switch (type) {
> > >    case TYPE_EFUSE_MAX_SECTION:
> > >        {
> > > -            u8 *pMax_section;
> > > -            pMax_section = pOut;
> > > +            u8 *pMax_section = pOut;
> > 
> > This is fine because "pOut" is a variable.  It doesn't have side
> > effects
> > and it's not "code" in that sense.
> > 
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> > 
> > 
>