On 11/23/2012 09:41 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:11:06AM +0800, Qing Xu wrote:
- int i, regulator_idx;
+ int i;
+ int regulator_idx = 0;
This sort of fix is rarely good without some analysis as to why this is
a sensible initialisation to do, just unconditionally initialising may
be masking a real issue in the control flow which the compiler has
identified.
In my build environment, there is no such compiler warning. :(
Adding this patch is just want to avoid kbuild test robot's warning.
But, in fact, it is not necessary to initialize regulator_idx.
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(max8925_regulator_info); i++) {
ri = &max8925_regulator_info[i];
if (ri->vol_reg == res->start) {
****** if regulator_idx can not get a match "i" here, it will return
-EINVAL in below code
regulator_idx = i;
break;
}
}
if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(max8925_regulator_info)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to find regulator %llu\n",
(unsigned long long)res->start);
return -EINVAL;
}
How to solve such compiler warning?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
