On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 09:31:18AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> The DRC index pointer us updated on an OPCODE_ADD, but never
> actually read.  Remove the used pointer and shift up OPCODE_ADD
> to group with OPCODE_DELETE which also provides a noop.
> 
> Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning:
> 
>  drivers/misc/cxl/flash.c: In function ‘update_devicetree’:
>  drivers/misc/cxl/flash.c:178:16: warning: variable ‘drc_index’ set but not 
> used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>  178 | __be32 *data, drc_index, phandle;
>  | ^~~~~~~~~
> 
> Cc: Frederic Barrat <fbar...@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Andrew Donnellan <a...@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/misc/cxl/flash.c | 7 ++-----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/flash.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/flash.c
> index cb9cca35a2263..24e3dfcc91a74 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/cxl/flash.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/flash.c
> @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ static int update_devicetree(struct cxl *adapter, s32 
> scope)
>       struct update_nodes_workarea *unwa;
>       u32 action, node_count;
>       int token, rc, i;
> -     __be32 *data, drc_index, phandle;
> +     __be32 *data, phandle;
>       char *buf;
>  
>       token = rtas_token("ibm,update-nodes");
> @@ -206,15 +206,12 @@ static int update_devicetree(struct cxl *adapter, s32 
> scope)
>  
>                               switch (action) {
>                               case OPCODE_DELETE:
> +                             case OPCODE_ADD:
>                                       /* nothing to do */
>                                       break;
>                               case OPCODE_UPDATE:
>                                       update_node(phandle, scope);
>                                       break;
> -                             case OPCODE_ADD:
> -                                     /* nothing to do, just move pointer */
> -                                     drc_index = *data++;
> -                                     break;

I think this is not correct, as *data++ changes the value there, and so
this changes the logic of the code.

Dropping this one from my queue.

thanks,

greg k-h

Reply via email to