Re: [patch] leds: renesas-tpu: cleanup a small type issue

Bryan Wu
2013-05-29T16:59:55Z

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:21:00AM +0200, walter harms wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 29.05.2013 09:02, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
>> > Static checkers complain that this is declared as an unsigned long
>> > but we only ever use the low 32 bits (ignoring sign expansion).
>> > But from the context, it should just be an unsigned short.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-renesas-tpu.c b/drivers/leds/leds-renesas-tpu.c
>> > index 9483f1c..fe1fbd0 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-renesas-tpu.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-renesas-tpu.c
>> > @@ -93,7 +93,8 @@ static inline void r_tpu_write(struct r_tpu_priv *p, int reg_nr,
>> > static void r_tpu_start_stop_ch(struct r_tpu_priv *p, int start)
>> > {
>> > struct led_renesas_tpu_config *cfg = p->pdev->dev.platform_data;
>> > - unsigned long flags, value;
>> > + unsigned long flags;
>> > + unsigned short value;
>> >
>>
>>
>> When it is using the lower 32bit may "int" is better ?
>
> The static checkers think it's using the lower 32 bits, but it's
> actually using the lower 16 bits.
>

Is "u16" better? I think we can replace all the unsigned short value
to u16 value.

Thanks,
-Bryan