[PATCH] staging: fbtft: Remove set but not used variable 'ret'

[PATCH] staging: fbtft: Remove set but not used variable 'ret'

[Zheng Yongjun]

Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning:

drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c: In function read_devicecode:
drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c:25:6: warning: variable ret set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]

ret is never used, so remove it.

Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Zheng Yongjun <zhengyongjun3@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c
index f2e72d14431d..f0ebc40857b3 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c
@@ -22,11 +22,10 @@
 
 static unsigned int read_devicecode(struct fbtft_par *par)
 {
-	int ret;
 	u8 rxbuf[8] = {0, };
 
 	write_reg(par, 0x0000);
-	ret = par->fbtftops.read(par, rxbuf, 4);
+	par->fbtftops.read(par, rxbuf, 4);
 	return (rxbuf[2] << 8) | rxbuf[3];
 }
 
-- 
2.23.0

Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: Remove set but not used variable 'ret'

[Greg KH]

On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 06:57:07PM +0800, Zheng Yongjun wrote:
> Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning:
> 
> drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c: In function read_devicecode:
> drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c:25:6: warning: variable ret set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> 
> ret is never used, so remove it.
> 
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zheng Yongjun <zhengyongjun3@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c
> index f2e72d14431d..f0ebc40857b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_ili9320.c
> @@ -22,11 +22,10 @@
>  
>  static unsigned int read_devicecode(struct fbtft_par *par)
>  {
> -	int ret;
>  	u8 rxbuf[8] = {0, };
>  
>  	write_reg(par, 0x0000);
> -	ret = par->fbtftops.read(par, rxbuf, 4);
> +	par->fbtftops.read(par, rxbuf, 4);
>  	return (rxbuf[2] << 8) | rxbuf[3];
>  }
>  

If the read call can fail, shouldn't you be passing back the error
value instead?

thanks,

greg k-h

> -- 
> 2.23.0
>