From: Jingoo Han <hidden> Date: 2012-06-19 06:36:28
This patch fixes build warning due to uninitialized value dereference.
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c: In function 'exynos_dp_set_link_train':
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c:529:18: warning: 'reg' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wuninitialized]
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c:395:6: note: 'reg' was declared here
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <redacted>
---
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Hi Jingoo,
On 06/19/2012 06:36 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
quoted hunk
This patch fixes build warning due to uninitialized value dereference.
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c: In function 'exynos_dp_set_link_train':
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c:529:18: warning: 'reg' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wuninitialized]
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c:395:6: note: 'reg' was declared here
Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <redacted>
---
drivers/video/exynos/exynos_dp_core.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
@@ -407,6 +407,8 @@ static unsigned int exynos_dp_get_lane_link_training(case3:reg=exynos_dp_get_lane3_link_training(dp);break;+default:+return-EINVAL;
Why do you consider returning -EINVAL here a good idea? As far as I can
see the caller does not check the return value for an error condition
and I doubt that the hardware understands what -EINVAL means. If you
want to fix the warning, make sure that you don't hide actual errors,
add an WARN or BUG or make sure the error code makes it to userspace.
From: Jingoo Han <hidden> Date: 2012-06-20 00:55:22
On Wed, June 20, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Florian Tobias Schandinat wrote:
Hi Jingoo,
On 06/19/2012 06:36 AM, Jingoo Han wrote:
quoted
This patch fixes build warning due to uninitialized value dereference.
@@ -407,6 +407,8 @@ static unsigned int exynos_dp_get_lane_link_training( case 3: reg = exynos_dp_get_lane3_link_training(dp); break;+ default:+ return -EINVAL;
Why do you consider returning -EINVAL here a good idea? As far as I can
see the caller does not check the return value for an error condition
and I doubt that the hardware understands what -EINVAL means. If you
want to fix the warning, make sure that you don't hide actual errors,
add an WARN or BUG or make sure the error code makes it to userspace.
OK, I will fix it and send the v2 patch.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jingoo Han