On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 06:40:14PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello Sasha,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:46:50AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
From: yu kuai yukuai3@huawei.com
[ Upstream commit 9871abffc81048e20f02e15d6aa4558a44ad53ea ]
Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning:
drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c: In function ‘pca9685_pwm_gpio_free’: drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c:162:21: warning: variable ‘pwm’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
It is never used, and so can be removed. In that case, hold and release the lock 'pca->lock' can be removed since nothing will be done between them.
Fixes: e926b12c611c ("pwm: Clear chip_data in pwm_put()") Signed-off-by: yu kuai yukuai3@huawei.com Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding thierry.reding@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org
drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c index 168684b02ebce..b07bdca3d510d 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c @@ -159,13 +159,9 @@ static void pca9685_pwm_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset, static void pca9685_pwm_gpio_free(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset) { struct pca9685 *pca = gpiochip_get_data(gpio);
- struct pwm_device *pwm;
pca9685_pwm_gpio_set(gpio, offset, 0); pm_runtime_put(pca->chip.dev);
- mutex_lock(&pca->lock);
- pwm = &pca->chip.pwms[offset];
- mutex_unlock(&pca->lock);
Even though I bet this change won't introduce a regression, it only fixes a harmless warning. So I wonder if it objectively qualifies to be applied for stable.
See my response to another one of these types of patches. In order words, I agree, these aren't needed unless they are prereqs for other real fixes.
thanks,
greg k-h