Harsh Prateek Bora <harsh.prateek.b...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Sept, 2023, 5:33 pm Cédric Le Goater, <c...@kaod.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/19/23 10:29, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 9/18/23 20:28, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> >> Remove extra 'drc_index' variable to avoid this warning :
>> >>
>> >> ../hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c: In function ‘rtas_ibm_configure_connector’:
>> >> ../hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c:1240:26: warning: declaration of ‘drc_index’
>> shadows a previous local [-Wshadow=compatible-local]
>> >> 1240 | uint32_t drc_index = spapr_drc_index(drc);
>> >> | ^~~~~~~~~
>> >> ../hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c:1155:14: note: shadowed declaration is here
>> >> 1155 | uint32_t drc_index;
>> >> | ^~~~~~~~~
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org>
>> >> ---
>> >> hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c | 2 --
>> >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c
>> >> index b5c400a94d1c..843e318312d3 100644
>> >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c
>> >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_drc.c
>> >> @@ -1237,8 +1237,6 @@ static void
>> rtas_ibm_configure_connector(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
>> >> case FDT_END_NODE:
>> >> drc->ccs_depth--;
>> >> if (drc->ccs_depth == 0) {
>> >> - uint32_t drc_index = spapr_drc_index(drc);
>> >> -
>> > I guess you only wanted to remove re-declaration part. Assigning the
>>
>> value returned by this function doesnt seem to happen before.
>>
>> drc_index is assigned at the top of this large routine with :
>>
>> drc_index = rtas_ld(wa_addr, 0);
>> drc = spapr_drc_by_index(drc_index);
>>
>>
>> So, the extra local variable 'drc_index' is simply redundant because
>> there are no reason for it to change. The drc object is the same AFAICT.
>> Correct ? I should have explained that better in the commit log.
>>
>
> Okay, since both routines were implemented differently, I wasn't sure about
> the impact of reassignment. Better commit log is always welcome.
Do you expect a respin? If not, would you like to give your R-by?
