From patchwork Tue Apr 23 03:49:53 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Masahiro Yamada X-Patchwork-Id: 1089054 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (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 44p8zt4tgXz9s71 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:07:38 +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="n6YMDDai"; 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 44p8zt3HqCzDqGt for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:07:38 +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=210.131.2.74; helo=conuserg-07.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="n6YMDDai"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from conuserg-07.nifty.com (conuserg-07.nifty.com [210.131.2.74]) (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 44p8dK02X1zDqMF for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:51:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (p14092-ipngnfx01kyoto.kyoto.ocn.ne.jp [153.142.97.92]) (authenticated) by conuserg-07.nifty.com with ESMTP id x3N3o2cD023044; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 12:50:11 +0900 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conuserg-07.nifty.com x3N3o2cD023044 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nifty.com; s=dec2015msa; t=1555991412; bh=ck3m1Bnhk+gBZ69Ip9jiWsEf5IWvpXJTs7wxMIQoCXU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=n6YMDDaiO+Y+ehsJY3BwtkUdg1YDcyPA3Dzmuu8XOwJ1WrZig5ClP17Sypb2aBakK pdb05/Mxt6GVPh61aaBT0xJP66Mu0V7s+lzlxmzMKtCZpnT8wEPrNDYE+HzwcwOsrt M+K4hgRSZ2BsDVMyqA2McjsJjJooi4+aOx81MKG7ecEsFD8/riXxDnXctaXPrCzSeY 2Awph1mCyl2BuT2YcctjtjX9fGNx3slwDHVqkisVXH/eIqwqW4g1+6Ign1Zg0xzjsQ nEbhKOdhvwUnu9BexA/KqiOdzGngWI9/3T9raieSibcixW3rUYkf2NW/Jkw05P6Tx3 svNkTBvfuxmgA== X-Nifty-SrcIP: [153.142.97.92] From: Masahiro Yamada To: Andrew Morton , linux-arch Subject: [RESEND PATCH v3 05/11] mtd: rawnand: vf610_nfc: add initializer to avoid -Wmaybe-uninitialized Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 12:49:53 +0900 Message-Id: <20190423034959.13525-6-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <20190423034959.13525-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> References: <20190423034959.13525-1-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 , Mathieu Malaterre , 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 v3: None 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;