lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/7] drivers: firmware: psci: Split psci_dt_cpu_init_idle()
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 15:42, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 28/02/2019 14:59, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Let's split the psci_dt_cpu_init_idle() function into two functions. This
> > makes the code clearer and provides better re-usability.
> >
> > Cc: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
> > Co-developed-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>
> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>
> but one question below.
>
>
> > ---
> > drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> > index c80ec1d03274..9788bfc1cf8b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> > @@ -270,9 +270,26 @@ static int __init psci_features(u32 psci_func_id)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u32 *, psci_power_state);
> >
> > +static int psci_dt_parse_state_node(struct device_node *np, u32 *state)
> > +{
> > + int err = of_property_read_u32(np, "arm,psci-suspend-param", state);
> > +
> > + if (err) {
> > + pr_warn("%pOF missing arm,psci-suspend-param property\n", np);
> > + return err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!psci_power_state_is_valid(*state)) {
> > + pr_warn("Invalid PSCI power state %#x\n", *state);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int psci_dt_cpu_init_idle(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu)
> > {
> > - int i, ret, count = 0;
> > + int i, ret = 0, count = 0;
>
> Why do you need to intialize the ret variable? If the count is zero we
> go directly to return 0, otherwise we enter in the loop and ret is
> affected with the new function call.

Depending on the compiler and the compiler flags, one could otherwise
potentially get a warning about using an uninitialized variable at the
free_mem label (not shown in the patch).

So, I just wanted to play safe.

Thanks a lot for reviewing!

Kind regards
Uffe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-28 23:14    [W:0.142 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site