From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:09:39 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 7/7] arm: omap2: clksel: fix compile warning In-Reply-To: <20110117081845.GF2812@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> References: <1295238680-26738-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> <1295238680-26738-8-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> <20110117081845.GF2812@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Message-ID: <20110119230939.GL4957@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Felipe Balbi [110117 00:18]: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 01:37:41PM +0530, Varadarajan, Charulatha wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:01, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > Fix the following compile warning: > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c: In function '_get_div_and_fieldval': > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c:100:35: warning: 'max_clkr' may be > > > used uninitialized in this function > > > > > > While at that, also add a check to avoid using max_clkr while NULL. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi > > > --- > > > ?arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c | ? ?5 ++++- > > > ?1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c > > > index a781cd6..baf0b6b 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c > > > @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static u8 _get_div_and_fieldval(struct clk *src_clk, struct clk *clk, > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?u32 *field_val) > > > ?{ > > > ? ? ? ?const struct clksel *clks; > > > - ? ? ? const struct clksel_rate *clkr, *max_clkr; > > > + ? ? ? const struct clksel_rate *clkr, *max_clkr = NULL; > > > ? ? ? ?u8 max_div = 0; > > > > > > ? ? ? ?clks = _get_clksel_by_parent(clk, src_clk); > > > @@ -123,6 +123,9 @@ static u8 _get_div_and_fieldval(struct clk *src_clk, struct clk *clk, > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?} > > > ? ? ? ?} > > > > > > + ? ? ? if (!max_clkr) > > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return 0; > > > > Would it be more appropriate to move this check after the "if" check > > of max_div==0 and it's warning? > > or add a warning before it returns? > > Maybe this return isn't even necessary. max_clkr will be true if max_div > is valid, so they cancel each other. > > Tony ? Looks like the max_div test should catch it to me. Paul? Tony