From patchwork Fri Apr 19 09:47:48 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Masahiro Yamada X-Patchwork-Id: 1088019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44ls3Y3cb8z9s3Z for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 20:02:49 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=socionext.com Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=nifty.com header.i=@nifty.com header.b="oudVdW/d"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44ls3Y26RxzDq63 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 20:02:49 +1000 (AEST) X-Original-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=softfail (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=socionext.com (client-ip=210.131.2.75; helo=conuserg-08.nifty.com; envelope-from=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=socionext.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=nifty.com header.i=@nifty.com header.b="oudVdW/d"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from conuserg-08.nifty.com (conuserg-08.nifty.com [210.131.2.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44lrls2x2XzDqTL for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:49:12 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (p14092-ipngnfx01kyoto.kyoto.ocn.ne.jp [153.142.97.92]) (authenticated) by conuserg-08.nifty.com with ESMTP id x3J9mDiQ012304; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:48:21 +0900 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conuserg-08.nifty.com x3J9mDiQ012304 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nifty.com; s=dec2015msa; t=1555667302; bh=i5XCWis3VrTykYK/RrX/WLSMvw74LO5onG7SxOwG69A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=oudVdW/dFWq56OuDzP6kKUzuEWhB1LghoeXto+rXOPNib4DV9Uy/SJlJzj1AbmWfp mevr0XhyqB2vZq4Cz+Z1v2JvWwOv56OiugvEABew3D+o/TOnkAQFO0IulE/o2RPA/B +sTZx4hUEh4VtZpZbGYRBLePR5ICQudFoYOaeslkPILaHXz1Ak62JsBLFHuo6nXW+A HdImamYXzb7Yk06Xdrpl/c4BLwIZGHF/XfL1anllWbvNDOtJizhoIHVpekzfvHeQsK kLoe+3N8CTYNLyxpT4B5He8gmcUsZrbdL7Q+2LWqM5b83Cr/r8gBn0MoV7tumFH5RV 2DmcgtWPSyNuw== X-Nifty-SrcIP: [153.142.97.92] From: Masahiro Yamada To: Andrew Morton , linux-arch Subject: [PATCH v2 05/11] mtd: rawnand: vf610_nfc: add initializer to avoid -Wmaybe-uninitialized Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:47:48 +0900 Message-Id: <20190419094754.24667-6-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <20190419094754.24667-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> References: <20190419094754.24667-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , x86@kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Masahiro Yamada , Ingo Molnar , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+patchwork-incoming=ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" This prepares to move CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING from x86 to a common place. We need to eliminate potential issues beforehand. Kbuild test robot has never reported -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning for this probably because vf610_nfc_run() is inlined by the x86 compiler's inlining heuristic. If CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING is enabled for a different architecture and vf610_nfc_run() is not inlined, the following warning is reported: drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c: In function ‘vf610_nfc_cmd’: drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c:455:3: warning: ‘offset’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] vf610_nfc_rd_from_sram(instr->ctx.data.buf.in + offset, ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ nfc->regs + NFC_MAIN_AREA(0) + offset, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ trfr_sz, !nfc->data_access); ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada --- Changes in v2: - split into a separate patch drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c index a662ca1970e5..19792d725ec2 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ static int vf610_nfc_cmd(struct nand_chip *chip, { const struct nand_op_instr *instr; struct vf610_nfc *nfc = chip_to_nfc(chip); - int op_id = -1, trfr_sz = 0, offset; + int op_id = -1, trfr_sz = 0, offset = 0; u32 col = 0, row = 0, cmd1 = 0, cmd2 = 0, code = 0; bool force8bit = false;