From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 07:45:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] leds: renesas-tpu: cleanup a small type issue Message-Id: <20130529074507.GD23987@mwanda> List-Id: References: <20130529070150.GC25133@debian> In-Reply-To: <20130529070150.GC25133@debian> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > 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. regards, dan carpenter