From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from asavdk3.altibox.net ([109.247.116.14]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fwvFM-0000K7-1a for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2018 20:14:53 +0000 Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 22:14:34 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg Message-ID: <20180903201434.GA981@ravnborg.org> References: <20180902212123.16405-1-r.hieber@pengutronix.de> <20180902212123.16405-2-r.hieber@pengutronix.de> <20180903044657.GA8720@ravnborg.org> <20180903135055.zcumxk3m347kyklw@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180903135055.zcumxk3m347kyklw@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pinctrl: imx-iomux-v3: fix compiler warning To: Roland Hieber Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org Hi Roland. > > > > In this code snip we only see that share_conf_val is used (line 149), > > it is not assigned. > > So we do not really see the context of your message in the code snip. > > > > Sam > > Thank you for your feedback. I took the opportunity and had a closer > look at the code. Here is the full context of the file from before the > patch: > > 83 static int imx_iomux_v3_set_state(struct pinctrl_device *pdev, struct device_node *np) > 84 { ... > 90 u32 share_conf_val; > 91 ... > 94 if (share_conf) { ... > 110 share_conf_val = > 111 FIELD_PREP(SHARE_CONF_PAD_CTL_DSE, drive_strength) | > 112 FIELD_PREP(SHARE_CONF_PAD_CTL_SRE, slew_rate); ... > 142 for (i = 0; i < npins; i++) { ... > 148 u32 conf_val = share_conf ? > 149 share_conf_val : be32_to_cpu(*list++); The comment was only that despite your effort the changelog did not provide enough context. Above I have provided enough context to your otherwise nice explanation. > So if you feel that the (old) compiler is wrong here about the warning, > and the code itself is correct enough, feel free to leave out that patch > from the queue. The patch is IMO fine, but the changelog could be better. Sam _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox