Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:34:26 +0300
From:   Dorcas Litunya <anonolitunya@gmail.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     outreachy@lists.linux.dev, julia.lawall@inria.fr,
        dan.carpenter@linaro.org, andi.shyti@linux.intel.com,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
        Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@siliconmotion.com>,
        linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: sm750fb: Remove unused return value in
 program_mode_registers()
Message-ID: <ZS+moqE585lPBN3m@dorcaslitunya-virtual-machine>
References: <cover.1697619623.git.anonolitunya@gmail.com>
 <492e63bbc58147fb534930ef9e1fb5d844ae8769.1697619623.git.anonolitunya@gmail.com>
 <2023101846-synopses-paralyses-d1ee@gregkh>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2023101846-synopses-paralyses-d1ee@gregkh>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:26:33AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:07:38PM +0300, Dorcas AnonoLitunya wrote:
> > Modifies the return type of program_mode_registers()
> > to void from int as the return value is being ignored in
> > all subsequent function calls.
> > 
> > This improves code readability and maintainability.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Dorcas AnonoLitunya <anonolitunya@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > index 83ace6cc9583..e15039238232 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ display_control_adjust_sm750le(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> >  }
> >  
> >  /* only timing related registers will be  programed */
> > -static int program_mode_registers(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > -				  struct pll_value *pll)
> > +static void program_mode_registers(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > +				   struct pll_value *pll)
> >  {
> >  	int ret = 0;
> >  	int cnt = 0;
> > @@ -202,7 +202,6 @@ static int program_mode_registers(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> >  	} else {
> >  		ret = -1;
> 
> Why are you still setting the 'ret' variable if you are not doing
> anything with it anymore?
> 
> >  	}
> > -	return ret;
> 
> Are you sure that the caller shouldn't be checking for errors instead of
> dropping the return value?  If so, document that in the changelog too.
>
Seems like the caller doesn't use the function to check for errors as in
the code below:

int ddk750_set_mode_timing(struct mode_parameter *parm, enum clock_type clock)
{
        struct pll_value pll;

        pll.input_freq = DEFAULT_INPUT_CLOCK;
        pll.clock_type = clock;

        sm750_calc_pll_value(parm->pixel_clock, &pll);
        if (sm750_get_chip_type() == SM750LE) {
                /* set graphic mode via IO method */
                outb_p(0x88, 0x3d4);
                outb_p(0x06, 0x3d5);
        }
        program_mode_registers(parm, &pll);
        return 0;

It will still return 0 regardless of whether there is an error or not.
Since I am not sure how the two functions relate to one another, is
there need to check error in the caller function?

thanks,
Dorcas
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h