On 14/07/2025 17:29, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 04:38:53PM +0100, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
The two functions blk_find_first and blk_find_next use a for loop with
the content being a 'return 0' which means that the 'increment' code is
unreachable so remove it and also remove the variable ret which is
assigned to but its value is never used.
This issue found by Smatch.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Goodbody <[email protected]>
---
drivers/block/blk-uclass.c | 14 ++++----------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/blk-uclass.c b/drivers/block/blk-uclass.c
index f3ac8db9464..b38c21ffbe2 100644
--- a/drivers/block/blk-uclass.c
+++ b/drivers/block/blk-uclass.c
@@ -613,11 +613,8 @@ static int blk_flags_check(struct udevice *dev, enum
blk_flag_t req_flags)
int blk_find_first(enum blk_flag_t flags, struct udevice **devp)
{
- int ret;
-
- for (ret = uclass_find_first_device(UCLASS_BLK, devp);
- *devp && !blk_flags_check(*devp, flags);
- ret = uclass_find_next_device(devp))
+ for (uclass_find_first_device(UCLASS_BLK, devp);
+ *devp && !blk_flags_check(*devp, flags);)
return 0;
return -ENODEV;
@@ -625,11 +622,8 @@ int blk_find_first(enum blk_flag_t flags, struct udevice
**devp)
int blk_find_next(enum blk_flag_t flags, struct udevice **devp)
{
- int ret;
-
- for (ret = uclass_find_next_device(devp);
- *devp && !blk_flags_check(*devp, flags);
- ret = uclass_find_next_device(devp))
+ for (uclass_find_next_device(devp);
+ *devp && !blk_flags_check(*devp, flags);)
return 0;
return -ENODEV;
Should we clean up uclass_find_next_device(...) to not return int? The
function comments don't quite make sense (include/dm/uclass-internal.h)
and it always returns 0.
OK, that should not be too bad.
Andrew
