On Tue, 19 Sept, 2023, 5:33 pm Cédric Le Goater, <
clg@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 <clg@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.
Regards
Harsh
Thanks,
C.
>
>> /* done sending the device tree, move to configured state */
>> trace_spapr_drc_set_configured(drc_index);
>> drc->state = drck->ready_state;