On Tue, 19 Sept, 2023, 5:33 pm Cédric Le Goater, <c...@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 <c...@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;
>
>
>
